Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors

[show] This page is a knowledge crystal of subtype variable. The page identifier is Op_en5802
Moderator:Marjo (see all)
This page is a stub. You may improve it into a full page.
Upload data {{#opasnet_base_link:Op_en5802}}

Question

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

Answer

Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors(-)
Obs	Exposure metric	Response	Response metric	Exposure route	Exposure unit	ERF parameter	ERF	Significance	Description/Reference
1	Visible dampness and/or mold or mold odor	Respiratory health effect		Inhalation	yes/no	OR	several, see Note 1		Note 1
2	Dampness and/or mold	Self-assessed health poorer		Inhalation, other					Note 2
3	Dampness and/or mold	Mental health problems	Prevalence	Inhalation, dermal and ingestion	yes/no	OR	1.76 (1.17-2.66)	0.0056	Hopton and Hunt (1996)
4	Chronic illness	Mental health problems	Prevalence	not applicable	yes/no	OR	1.99 (1.32-3.02)	0.0008	Hopton and Hunt (1996)
5	Living with children under 16 y	Mental health problems	Prevalence	not applicable	yes/no	OR	1.75 (1.15-2.68)	0.0083	Hopton and Hunt (1996)
6	Living in a low income household	Mental health problems	Prevalence	not applicable	yes/no	OR	1.61 (1.06-2.44)	0.0231	Hopton and Hunt (1996)
7	Respondent unemployed	Mental health problems	Prevalence	not applicable	yes/no	OR	1.55 (0.99-2.42)	0.0483	Hopton and Hunt (1996)
8	Living in flat instead of house	General morbidity	Morbidity	not applicable	yes/no	percentage unit change	57		D.Fanning (1967)
9	Living in ground floor	Psychoneurotic disorder	Incidence	not applicable	yes/no	rate per 1000	63		D.Fanning (1967)
10	Living in 1st floor	Psychoneurotic disorder	Incidence	not applicable	yes/no	rate per 1000	66.7		D.Fanning (1967)
11	Living in 2nd floor	Psychoneurotic disorder	Incidence	not applicable	yes/no	rate per 1000	109.4		D.Fanning (1967)
12	Living in 3rd floor	Psychoneurotic disorder	Incidence	not applicable	yes/no	rate per 1000	127.3		D.Fanning (1967)
13	Wood smoke	Respiratory health effect		Inhalation					Note 3, Note 4
14	Wood smoke	Irritation of eyes and mucosa
15	Wood smoke	Respiratory health effect		Inhalation
16	Wood smoke	Odour problems		Inhalation
17	Wood smoke	Comfort of housing
18	Wood smoke	Chronic infections		Inhalation
19	Wood smoke	Cancer		Inhalation
20	Tobacco smoke	Respiratory health effect		Inhalation
21	Tobacco smoke	Irritation of eyes and mucosa
22	Tobacco smoke	Respiratory health effect
23	Tobacco smoke	Odour problems		Inhalation
24	Tobacco smoke	Comfort of housing
25	Tobacco smoke	Chronic infections		Inhalation
26	Tobacco smoke	Cancer
27	VOCs	irritation symptoms etc.
28	CO2	headache, tiredness etc.
29	CO	headache, tiredness etc.
30	Insufficient air exchange	Headache
31	Insufficient air exchange	Tiredness
32	Insufficient air exchange	Decreased ability to concentrate
33	Insufficient air exchange	Feeling of fug
34	Thermal conditions; heat	Tiredness
35	Thermal conditions; heat	Decreased ability to concentrate
36	Thermal conditions; heat	Increased respiratory symptoms
37	Thermal conditions; heat	Feeling of dryness
38	Thermal conditions; heat	Comfort of housing
39	Thermal comfort (draught or cold)	Mental health problems							Note 2
40	Thermal comfort (heat or cold)	Depression							Note 2
41	Thermal comfort (heat or cold; general perception of thermal problems)	Self-assessed health poorer							Note 2
42	Thermal conditions (cold)	Feeling of draught
43	Thermal conditions (cold)	Comfort of housing
44	Noise	Hearing injury
45	Noise	Sleep disturbance
46	Noise	Stress
47	Noise	Comfort of housing
48	Proximity to traffic	Mortality(?)
49	Radon	Lung cancer							Note 5
50	Relative humidity
51	PM	mortality							Note 3
52	PM	chronic bronchitis
53	PM	lung cancer
54	Reduced space (house/flat)	Depression							Note 2
55	Reduced space (house/flat)	Mental health problems							Note 2
56	Reduced space (house/flat)	Self-assessed health poorer							Note 2
57	Garden	Depression							Note 2
58	Floor level	Mental health problems							Note 2
59	Overcrowding	Mental health problems							Note 2
60	Overcrowding	Self assessed health poorer							Note 2
61	Sensory IAQ	Various health and well-being parameters
62	Maternal employment	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	no/yes	OR	2.82 (1.59-5.00)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
63	No. of house moves in previous 5 years	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	2-3 vs. 0-1	OR	1.32 (0.77-2.27)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
64	No. of house moves in previous 5 years	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	4 or more vs. 0-1	OR	2.81 (1.59-4.96)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
65	Overcrowded accomodation	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	yes/no	OR	2.16 (1.27-3.70)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
66	Accomodation	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	Council vs. owned/mortgarged	OR	7.65 (3.30-17.75)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
67	Accomodation	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	Rented vs. owned/mortgarged	OR	4.47 (1.82-10.98)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
68	Social Network Score < 21	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	yes/no	OR	3.09 (1.84-5.19)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
69	Paternal employement	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	no/yes	OR	2.33 (1.43-3.77)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
70	Car use	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	no/yes	OR	2.33 (1.41-3.83)		Sidebotham et al. 2002
71	No. of deprivation indicators	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	1 vs. 0	OR	9.58 (2.64-34.81)		Note 6; Sidebotham et al. 2002
72	No. of deprivation indicators	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	2 vs. 0	OR	23.44 (6.61-83.15)		Note 6; Sidebotham et al. 2002
73	No. of deprivation indicators	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	3 vs. 0	OR	59.30 (17.52-200.76)		Note 6; Sidebotham et al. 2002
74	No. of deprivation indicators	Maltreatment of children	Prevalence	Other	4 vs. 0	OR	111.36 (32.31-383.801)		Note 6; Sidebotham et al. 2002
75	House dampness	Smoking	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	8.0 (0.4-15.6)		Packer et al. 1994
76	House dampness	Use of low fat milk	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	7.8 (-0.3-15.9)		Packer et al. 1994
77	House dampness	Exercise 3 or more times during last week	Prevalence	Inhalation, Other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	2.8 (-2.8-8.4)		Packer et al. 1994
78	House dampness	Body mass index >25	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	1.8 (-5.6-9.2)		Packer et al. 1994
79	House dampness	Alcohol over limit (limits: females 14 units, males 21 units per week)	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	0.1 (-5.3-5.5)		Packer et al. 1994
80	House dampness	Problems in energy (according Nottingham Health Profile)	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	15.8 (8.3-23.3)		Packer et al. 1994
81	House dampness	Social isolation (according Nottingham Health Profile)	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	10.1 (3.7-16.5)		Packer et al. 1994
82	House dampness	Problems in sleep (according Nottingham Health Profile)	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	9.3 (1.7-16.9)		Packer et al. 1994
83	House dampness	Problems in emotional reactions (according Nottingham Health Profile)	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	5.6 (-2.0-13.2)		Packer et al. 1994
84	House dampness	Problems in physical mobility (according Nottingham Health Profile)	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	3.9 (-1.8-9.6)		Packer et al. 1994
85	House dampness	Perception of pain (according Nottingham Health Profile)	Prevalence	Inhalation, other	yes/no	Percentage unit change	2.8 (-2.6-8.2)		Packer et al. 1994
86	Smoking	Chronic respiratory disease	Prevalence	Inhalation	yes/no	OR	4.36 (2.46-7.74)	0.000	Blackman et al. (2001)
87	Dampness	Chronic respiratory disease	Prevalence	Inhalation	yes/no	OR	2.10 (1.36-3.50)	0.004	Blackman et al. (2001)
88	Unwaged household	Chronic respiratory disease	Prevalence	Other	yes/no	OR	1.73 (1.24-2.41)	0.001	Blackman et al. (2001)
89	Unsafe neighborhood	Mental health problems	Prevalence	Other	yes/no	OR	2.35 (1.41-3.92)	0.001	Blackman et al. (2001)
90	Chronic respiratory problems	Mental health problems	Prevalence	Other	yes/no	OR	2.35 (1.50-3.69)	0.000	Blackman et al. (2001)
91	Draughts	Mental health problems	Prevalence	Other	yes/no	OR	2.28 (1.41-3.69)	0.001	Blackman et al. (2001)
92	Rehousing	Palpitations/breathlessness	Prevalence	not applicable	yes/no	Percentage unit change	-7.8	0.08	Pettricrew et al. 2009
93	Rehousing	Persistent cough	Prevalence	not applicaple	yes/no	Percentage unit change	-2.1	0.55	Pettricrew et al. 2009
94	Rehousing	Painful joints	Prevalence	not applicable	yes/no	Percentage unit change	-8.7	0.03	Pettricrew et al. 2009
95	Rehousing	Faints/dizziness	Prevalence	not applicable	yes/no	Percentage unit change	-5.7	0.08	Pettricrew et al. 2009
96	Rehousing	Difficulty in sleeping	Prevalence	not applicable	yes/no	Percentage unit change	-17.4	<0.0001	Pettricrew et al. 2009
97	Rehousing	Sinus trouble/catarh	Prevalence	not applicable	yes/no	Percentage unit change	-4.7	0.20	Pettricrew et al. 2009
98	Housing tenure	Poor self-rated health	Prevalence	not applicable	renter vs. owner	OR	1.48 (1.31-1.68)		Pollack et al. 2004
99	Dampness and/or mold	General health problem		perception	yes/no	increased risk of health problems %	64%		Evans et al (2000)
100	Dampness and/or mold	Mental health problems		perception	yes/no	OR	1.39(1.44-2.78)		Shenassa et al. 2007

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

Note 6 Indicators of deprivation: overcrowded accommodation, accomodation ownership, paternal employment, car use

Rationale

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.

- Possible confounding variables such as sociodemographic and economic variables, e.g. age and income, were controlled.

- 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.

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 registered 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 in 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.

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)

- 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, because the mechanism is unknown.←--#: . 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 using regression model was used to control variables, such as economic, housing, respiratory and mental health related to increase plausability----#: . 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)

----#: . Precisions and plausabilities updated --Jukka Hirvonen 09:30, 11 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 have accepted the housing offer which dosn't gives the RSL direct contact with the participant though this serves as a way of good recruitments 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 if they can not recall adequately past occurences relating to health, housing and neighbourhood questions after one year and two years of movement to the new house.

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

←--#: . Good points and thorough work! By checking the spelling you could increase the elegancy of your work. --Marjo 17:46, 11 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)----#: . updated --Matthew 12:43, 13 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment)

Precision and Plausibility of Pollack et al. (2004)

Since the study controls which can potentially bias the result,like socioeconomic factors,relation to the neighbors,pollution in the local environment,I can say the result is is ok.Besides multiple questioners were performed to assess the home and neighborhood environment again to reduce bias.But I have comments which can potentially affect the result,and which is not discussed in detail or not mentioned at all in the article

-If the participants work, of-course, they have to work to survive ,how about the condition of task place they work,does it have a potential to influence in their health? since the average time per day a person spent in a task is about 8hr,which is about one third of the day, so it supposed to be considered in detail. That is my argument

-How about life style,diet,smoking,alcohol,may be they included it in socioeconomic factor,in this case we have to get the detail information and parameters about the topics in socioeconomic factors.

In summary they put huge effort to come up to the result but further clarity required,and I can say it is OK regardless of plausibility and precision. ←--#: . Good considerations. Correcting the language would increase the elegancy of your work. --Marjo 16:35, 14 February 2013 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence)

Dependencies

Formula

Keywords

References

Related files

Indoor environment quality (IEQ) factors. Opasnet . [1]. Accessed 27 Apr 2025.