Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 238: Line 238:


-      The study has not considered the differences between different flats and houses. They have only categories for houses and flats but the differences between houses are not considered. This causes bias to the study.{{comment|# |Well, it is possible. However, it is always a question of e.g. resources how specific and detailed a study can be. Maybe they could more apparently mention whether there were any significant dissimilarities between houses. |--[[User:Marjo|Marjo]] 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET)}}
-      The study has not considered the differences between different flats and houses. They have only categories for houses and flats but the differences between houses are not considered. This causes bias to the study.{{comment|# |Well, it is possible. However, it is always a question of e.g. resources how specific and detailed a study can be. Maybe they could more apparently mention whether there were any significant dissimilarities between houses. |--[[User:Marjo|Marjo]] 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET)}}


'''Precision and Plausability of Petticrew et al. (2009)'''
'''Precision and Plausability of Petticrew et al. (2009)'''

Revision as of 04:04, 11 February 2013



Question

What established or possible indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors exist? What kind of dose-responses have been defined for them?

Answer

You have error(s) in your data:

You have invalid number of data cells in row 84
You have invalid number of data cells in row 91
You have invalid number of data cells in row 100
You have invalid number of data cells in row 101
You have invalid number of data cells in row 102

Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors: Difference between revisions(-)
ObsExposure metricResponseResponse metricExposure routeExposure unitERF parameterERFSignificanceDescription/Reference
1Visible dampness and/or mold or mold odorRespiratory health effectInhalationyes/noORseveral, see Note 1Note 1
2Dampness and/or moldDepressionInhalation, Other?Note 2
3Dampness and/or moldMental health problemsInhalation, Other?Note 2
4Dampness and/or moldSelf-assessed health poorerInhalation, Other?Note 2
5Dampness and/or moldMental health problemsInhalation, dermal and ingestionyes/noOR1.76 (1.17-2.66)Hopton and Hunt (1996)
6Chronic illness Mental health problemsnot applicableyes/noOR1.99 (1.32-3.02)Hopton and Hunt (1996)
7Living with children under 16 y Mental health problemsnot applicableyes/noOR1.75 (1.15-2.68)Hopton and Hunt (1996)
8Living in a low income household Mental health problemsnot applicableyes/noOR1.61 (1.06-2.44)Hopton and Hunt (1996)
9Respondent unemployed Mental health problemsnot applicableyes/noOR1.55 (0.99-2.42)Hopton and Hunt (1996)
10Living in flat instead of houseUpper respitory infectionInhalationyes/noD.Fanning (1967)
11Living in flat instead of houseMinor mental health problemsNeurosisyes/noD.Fanning (1967)
12Living in flat instead of houseMorbidityCommon sicknessyes/noD.Fanning (1967)
13Wood smokeRespiratory health effectInhalationNote 3, Note 4
14Wood smokeIrritation of eyes and mucosa
15Wood smokeRespiratory health effectInhalation
16Wood smokeOdour problemsInhalation
17Wood smokeComfort of housing
18Wood smokeChronic infectionsInhalation
19Wood smokeCancerInhalation
20Tobacco smokeRespiratory health effectInhalation
21Tobacco smokeIrritation of eyes and mucosa
22Tobacco smokeRespiratory health effect
23Tobacco smokeOdour problemsInhalation
24Tobacco smokeComfort of housing
25Tobacco smokeChronic infectionsInhalation
26Tobacco smokeCancer
27VOCsirritation symptoms etc.
28CO2headache, tiredness etc.
29COheadache, tiredness etc.
30Insufficient air exchangeHeadache
31Insufficient air exchangeTiredness
32Insufficient air exchangeDecreased ability to concentrate
33Insufficient air exchangeFeeling of fug
34Thermal conditions; heatTiredness
35Thermal conditions; heatDecreased ability to concentrate
36Thermal conditions; heatIncreased respiratory symptoms
37Thermal conditions; heatFeeling of dryness
38Thermal conditions; heatComfort of housing
39Thermal comfort (draught or cold)Mental health problemsNote 2
40Thermal comfort (heat or cold)DepressionNote 2
41Thermal comfort (heat or cold; general perception of thermal problems)Self-assessed health poorerNote 2
42Thermal conditions (cold)Feeling of draught
43Thermal conditions (cold)Comfort of housing
44NoiseHearing injury
45NoiseSleep disturbance
46NoiseStress
47NoiseComfort of housing
48Proximity to trafficMortality(?)
49RadonLung cancerNote 5
50Relative humidity
51PMmortalityNote 3
52PMchronic bronchitis
53PMlung cancer
54Reduced space (house/flat)DepressionNote 2
55Reduced space (house/flat)Mental health problemsNote 2
56Reduced space (house/flat)Self-assessed health poorerNote 2
57GardenDepressionNote 2
58Floor levelMental health problemsNote 2
59OvercrowdingMental health problemsNote 2
60OvercrowdingSelf assessed health poorerNote 2
61Sensory IAQVarious health and well-being parameters
62Maternal employmentMaltreatment of ChildrenOtheryes/noOR2.82 (1.59 - 5.00)Sidebotham et al. 2002
632 - 3 house moves in previous 5 yearsMaltreatment of ChildrenOthermedium vs. lowOR1.32 (0.77 - 2.27)Sidebotham et al. 2002
644 or more house moves in previous 5 yearsMaltreatment of ChildrenOtherhigh vs. lowOR2.81 (1.59 - 4.96)Sidebotham et al. 2002
65Accomodation - overcrowedMaltreatment of ChildrenOtheryes/noOR2.16Sidebotham et al. 2002
66Accomodation - councilMaltreatment of ChildrenOtherCouncil vs. owned/mortgargedOR7.65Sidebotham et al. 2002
67Accomodation - rentedMaltreatment of ChildrenOtherRented vs. owned/mortgargedOR4.47Sidebotham et al. 2002
68Social Network Score < 21Maltreatment of ChildrenOtheryes/noOR3.09 (1.84 - 5.19)Sidebotham et al. 2002
69Parental unemployementMaltreatment of ChildrenOtheryes/noOR2.33Sidebotham et al. 2002
70Car useMaltreatment of ChildrenOtheryes/noOR2.23Sidebotham et al. 2002
71House dampnessHeadacheinhalation, otheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
72House dampnessAches and painsinhalation, otheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
73House dampnessDiarrhea inhalation, otheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
74House dampnessNeurological problemsOtheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
75House dampnessMigraineOtheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
76House dampnessChest problemsinhalation, otheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
77House dampnessHigh blood pressureinhalation, otheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
78House dampnessMuscle tensionOtheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
79SmokingRespiratory diseaseinhalationyes/noPacker et al. 1994
80Social lifeHealth problemsother<21Packer et al. 1994
81AlcoholSevere health problemsotheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
82Lone adultMental problemsotheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
83Unemployment seeking workMental problemotheryes/noPacker et al. 1994
84
85Smokingchronic respiratory diseaseotheryes/noOR4.36(2.46-7.74)Blackman et al. (2001)
86Dampnesschronic respiratory diseaseotheryes/noOR2.10(1.36-3.50)Blackman et al. (2001)
87Unwaged householdchronic respiratory diseaseotheryes/noOR1.73(1.24-2.41)Blackman et al. (2001)
88Unsafe neighborhoodmental health problemsotheryes/noOR2.35(1.41-3.92)Blackman et al. (2001)
89Chronic respiratory problemsmental health problemsotheryes/noOR2.35(1.50-3.69)Blackman et al. (2001)
90Draughtsmental health problemsotheryes/noOR2.28(1.41-3.69)Blackman et al. (2001)
91
92Accomodation -largeventilation problemsOtheryes/noORPettricrew et al. 2009
93Acommodation -smallfaint/dizznessotheryes/noORPettricrew et al. 2009
94Smokingpersistence coughInhalationyes/noORpettricrew et al. 2009
95Housing dampnesspainful jointsInhalationyes/noORPettricrew et al. 2009
96Noise from householddifficulty in sleepingnot applicableyes/noORPettricrew et al. 2009
97Noise from neighboursear problemnot applicableyes/noORPettricrew et al. 2009
98Long standing illnessmental health problemsOtheryes/noORPettricrew et al. 2009
99Alcohol consumptionrespiratory problemsingestionyes/noORPettricrew et al. 2009
100
101
102

Note 1 ERF of indoor dampness on respiratory health effects

Note 2 WP6 well-being report (password-protected)

Note 3 ERF of PM2.5 on mortality in general population

Note 4 Concentration-response to PM2.5

Note 5 Health impact of radon in Europe


⇤--#: . Comments on Hopton and Hunt (1996):

  • Row 5: Are you sure that the only possible exposure route is inhalation?
  • Rows 6 to 9: Instead of "no", exposure route should be "not applicable".
  • Rows 5 to 9: Use periods instead of commas as decimal points. --Marjo 10:22, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Comments have been considered. --Juho Kutvonen 13:52, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

⇤--#: . Comments on Sidebotham et al. (2002)

  • Rows 59, 66 and 67 are filled correctly. What comes to rows 60 to 65, small but essential changes should be done in columns "exposure metric" and "exposure unit". An example: "exposure metric" of row 60 should be "2 to 3 house moves in previous 5 years" and the respective "exposure unit" should be "medium vs. low". Based on this example, can you figure out the correct structures of rows 61 to 65? --Marjo 10:41, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

←--#: . Good revisions, you have the right idea. However, some minor modifications would be appropriate: in row 62 "exposure unit" can simply be "yes/no", as the accomodation either is overcrowded or is not; no other possibilities exist. In row 65 the "exposure metric" should be "Social network score < 21" and "exposure unit" again simply "yes/no". --Marjo 15:44, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


⇤--#: . Comments on Packer et al. (1994)

  • In the paper of Packer et al. (1994) no ORs are given. Instead, they have measured prevalences. Therefore, "response metric" should be "prevalence" and "ERF parameter" should be "percentage unit change".
  • Row 69: According the Table 4, "exposure metric" is damp housing and "response" is "smoking". Based on this, can you figure out the correct structures of rows 70 to 73? --Marjo 11:05, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

----#: . we updated the data --Soroushm 23:25, 10 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

⇤--#: . Comments on Blackman et al. (2001)

  • "Response metric" should describe how the response was measured: number of cases, incidence, prevalence,... I see that you have filled "response metric" boxes according earlier versions of this table, unfortunately, "response metric" was not used correctly there. The information you now have in boxes "response" and "response metric" all belongs to "response". You could do the following: decide and formulate the most accurate responses and put them into "response" -boxes and empty the "response metric" -boxes. If you can define the response metric, i.e. number of cases, incidence, prevalence etc.. used in the article, you can put it into "response metric" box. --Marjo 14:39, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

⇤--#: . Don´t you think that the most likely exposure route in case of smoking and chronic respiratory disease as well as in case of dampness and chronic respiratory disease would be inhalation? --Marjo 16:31, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)


⇤--#: . Comments on Fanning (1967)

  • This article does not express ORs, which makes it a bit tricky in terms of this exercise. Anyhow, the idea is to find numerical value for ERF to be added into table. At least for morbidity a numerical value can be found in the article, although it is not OR. Can you find it?
  • If no numerical value can be found for the two other responses, they should be removed. Instead, you could try to put the data of Table VIII of the article into the IEQ table.
  • Exposure route can not be "neurosis" or "common sickness". I suggest exposure route in these cases is "not applicable". --Marjo 17:29, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)

Rationale

An example for RefTag functionality: Pope et al. (2002) [1]

Juho Kutvonen and Salla Mönkkönen Hopton and Hunt (1996) [2]

Isabell Rumrich and Stefania Caporaso Sidebotham et al. (2002) [3]

Soroush Majlesi and Adnan Ahmad Packer et al. (1994) [4]

Jukka Hirvonen and Sami Rissanen Blackman et al. (2001) [5]

Niklas Holopainen and Kasperi Juntunen Fanning D. M. et al. (1967) [6]

Matthew Adeboye and Adedayo Mofikoya Petticrew et al. (2009) [7]

Precision and Plausability of Hopton and Hunt (1996)

- Reporting bias: Perhaps ít´s difficult to use subjective data due to reporting bias. This is because people may answer in different ways or they don´t answer at all. In addition, people experience household conditions differently.←--#: . Good points. --Marjo 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Possible confounding variables were controlled. ----#: . Can you give examples of the confounding variables mentioned in the paper? --Marjo 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)←--#: . Sociodemographic and economic variables, e.g. age and income. --Juho Kutvonen 12:23, 6 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Selection bias: The sample is clearly not representative of the general population and therefore the analysis focuses on differences within the sample. Thus it´s worth considering if the results can be generalized to whole population.←--#: . Good points. --Marjo 14:50, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)


Precision and Plausability of Sidebotham et al. (2002)

- Maltreatment is defined and measured as registration for physical injury, neglect, sexual abuse, emotional abuse. That way all maltreatments, which are not registred are not taken into account.

- The measurement of the social class is not too accurate, because no allowance for nonworking mothers and no parental social class allocated for single mothers can be applied.

- The nature of relationship with child maltreatment is complex (confounder, cultural values, etc). That causes problems finding an association or causality between an exposure factor and maltreatment. Moreover, maltreatment has different definition in different cultural groups.

- The parental income is not measured directly, but car ownership as a proxy indicator and the receipt of welfare payment are used.

- Controlling for social factors was done.

- Large amount of prospectively data are collected and used in in the study, which is a clear strength.

- The participation is lower among the maltreated group, which might influence the outcome of the statistical analysis or bias the results of the study.

- The risk of social bias and no way of measuring the effect of such bias. A social bias can be defined as a prejudgement of a specific social group. In this case, it might be that those, who collected the data might have expectations, that parents which lower or higher social background are more prone to maltreat their child and let this expectation influence their interpretation of the results. This is not very likely here, though, because all parameters which were used for the analysis can me measured and there is not much freedome for interpretation.


----#: . You have listed correct points that may affect precision and plausibility of the ERF; well done. However, it would be easier for the reader if you would use full sentences or otherwise would explain a bit more in detail how these issues affect the precision and plausibity of ERF.

  • What is meant with "social bias" here? --Marjo 15:06, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

----#: . We added explanations. --Isabell Rumrich 09:58, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


Precision and Plausability of Packer et al. (1994)

- health problems: possibility of headache, mental problems, emotional reactions, social isolation and pain.

- social factors: unemployment, single parent, lone adult and unemployment with sickness or disability

- lifestyle: consumption of alcohol and smoking

----#: . It might be helpful for the reader if you would use full sentences in order to explain how the above issues affect the precision and plausibility of ERF. --Marjo 15:28, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

- it is still difficult to understand the housing condition because none of the studies are complete and detailed so that direct comparison with the questions cannot be made and measurements of parameters, potential confounding factors as well as clear dose-response relationship should be adjusted for example physical effect of damp is responsible for muscle tension, backache and headache but on the other hand the study poins out that there is a strong relationship between damp housing and adverse health impact. ----#: . I see that the two last points are in concordance with each other. --Marjo 15:28, 4 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Precision and Plausability of Blackman et al. (2001)

- Bias in respondents answers to realistically evaluate their and family members health.←--#: . Good. --Marjo 16:25, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Social class: in survey area major of participants with low income and/or need of social wellfare.----#: . Can you eplain, how this issue (social class) affects precision and plausibility of ERF? --Marjo 16:25, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

- Some housings that where targets on first survey were demolished during second survey.

- No data from comparison neighbourhood without renewal to back up observed health changes after renewal program. ←--#: . Good point. --Marjo 16:25, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Relationship between dampness, draughts and mental health is uncertain.←--#: . Again good, although you could specify this. Is it so that associations have been found but the mechanisms are unclear? --Marjo 16:25, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- Multivariate analysis usings regression model was used to control variables, such as economic, housing, respiratory and mental health related.----#: . So in contrast to the previous points, this increases the plausibility of ERF, is this what you mean? --Marjo 16:25, 7 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Precision and Plausability of D. Fanning (1967)

- The study is so old that the exposures and responses are real but the accuracy is quite poor. The basics are almost same as today but measurement techniques are so old that the results are not comparable to modern results. ⇤--#: . Which specific measurement techniques do you mean? For example, they have measured first attendances by general practitioners, and I don´t think the accuracy of counting has changed significantly. --Marjo 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack)←--#: . However, I agree with you that the oldness of study is a bit striking. Probably today many other parameters in addition to those used in the article would be measured when conducting this kind of study. --Marjo 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- The study has considered the difference between children and adults.←--#: . Good point. --Marjo 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

- The study has not considered the differences between different flats and houses. They have only categories for houses and flats but the differences between houses are not considered. This causes bias to the study.----#: . Well, it is possible. However, it is always a question of e.g. resources how specific and detailed a study can be. Maybe they could more apparently mention whether there were any significant dissimilarities between houses. --Marjo 18:08, 8 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)


Precision and Plausability of Petticrew et al. (2009)

- Data collection at the three occassions in the intervention group before moving, one year after moving and 2 years after moving to the social housing gives strenght to the study in analysing changes in the housing circumstances and in neighbourhood.

- Recruitment into the study was discussed by the landlord to the tenant once they accepted the housing offer which dosn't gives the RSL direct contact with the participant though this serves as a way of good recreuitments but it dose not guarantee the authenticity of the data collected. e.g RSL couldn't supply the number of people who refuse to participate in the study to the SHARP research team.

- Broad range of adult household categories in the intervention group which was used as a base for recruiting the comparism group stenghthen the study. (family households, with children under age of sixteen years, older households where the respondents and adult members of the households were of pensionable age, and adult households with a combination of relationships, including parents with children atleast 16 years of age, people unrelated to one and another and couples )

- Qualitative and quantitative findings were only presented for 1 year(wave 2) in the study which dose not proof if the effects are sustained and probabely if differences in health outcomes occur at two years in the intervention and comparism groups.

- recollection bias may occur during interview if participant in the groups can not recall adequately past occurences relating to health, housing and neighbourhood questions.

- Bias in subsequent analysis can also occur if there is any significant changes in the groups associated with self reported health.




Dependencies

Formula

See also

Keywords

References

  1. *Pope CA III, Burnett RT, Thun MJ, Calle EE, Krewski D, Ito K & Thurston KD (2002). Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287(9), 1132-1141.
  2. *Hopton J.L. and Hunt S.M.(1996). Housing conditions and mental health in a disadvantaged area in Scotland. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 1996;50:56-61
  3. *Sidebotham et al. (2002). Child maltreatment in the “Children of the Nineties:” deprivation, class, and social networks in a UK sample.Child Abuse and Neglect 2002;26:1243-1259
  4. *Packer et al. Damp housing and adult health: results from a lifestyle study in Worcester, England.Journal of epidemiology and community health 1994;48(6):555–559
  5. *Blackman T, Harvey J, Lawrence M & Simon A. (2001). Neighbourhood renewal and health: evidence from a local case study. Health & Place 7(2001), 93-103.
  6. *Fanning D. M. (1967). Families in flats. British Medical Journal 4(1967), 382-386.
  7. *Petticrew et al. (2009). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the short-term outcomes of housing and neighbourhood renewal. BMC public health 2009;9:415

Related files

<mfanonymousfilelist></mfanonymousfilelist>

Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors. Opasnet . [1]. Accessed 24 Nov 2024.