Jacobs David E
National Center for Healthy Housing, Columbia, MD 21044, USA.
Environ Res. 2006 Sep;102(1):13-21. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2005.12.008. Epub 2006 Jan 31.
While the general link between substandard housing and poor health has received increased attention recently, there are currently no widely accepted standardized protocols to assess and remediate multiple housing-related health hazards. This paper compares several protocols that assess housing health hazards, including the Hazard Assessment and Reduction Program, the American Healthy Homes Survey, the Public Housing Assessment System, the Housing Quality Standards, the American Housing Survey, the Community Environmental Health Resource Center protocol, and the National Energy Audit Tool. The comparison shows considerable variability across the protocols, particularly in the collection of environmental samples or measurements. This may be due in part to differing end uses, as well as the fact that the intersection of housing and health issues is not clearly in the domain of either profession. Housing professionals typically focus on durability and affordability, while environmental health professionals are frequently focused on specific disease or injury vectors, not on place-based interventions. Validation studies at both the national and the international level are needed to determine how well both the hazard assessment and the resulting interventions predict health outcome. Standardizing and validating such protocols can help move beyond the existing limited categorical approaches and will help improve both substandard housing quality and public health.
虽然不合标准的住房与健康状况不佳之间的总体关联最近受到了更多关注,但目前尚无广泛接受的标准化方案来评估和整治多种与住房相关的健康危害。本文比较了几种评估住房健康危害的方案,包括危害评估与减少计划、美国健康住宅调查、公共住房评估系统、住房质量标准、美国住房调查、社区环境卫生资源中心方案以及国家能源审计工具。比较结果显示,这些方案存在相当大的差异,尤其是在环境样本采集或测量方面。这可能部分归因于最终用途不同,以及住房与健康问题的交叉领域并不明确属于任何一个专业领域。住房专业人员通常关注耐久性和可承受性,而环境卫生专业人员则经常关注特定的疾病或伤害媒介,而非基于场所的干预措施。需要在国家和国际层面开展验证研究,以确定危害评估及其后的干预措施对健康结果的预测效果如何。使此类方案标准化并进行验证有助于超越现有的有限分类方法,并将有助于改善不合标准的住房质量和公众健康。