Child Health Research Centre, Level 7, Centre for Children's Health Research (CCHR), The University of Queensland, 62 Graham Street, South Brisbane, QLD 4101, Australia.
Child Health Research Centre, Level 7, Centre for Children's Health Research (CCHR), The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Australia.
Rev Environ Health. 2019 Dec 18;34(4):391-401. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2019-0033.
The potential impacts of coal mining on health have been addressed by the application of impact assessment methodologies that use the results of qualitative and quantitative analyses to support their conclusions and recommendations. Although human epidemiological analyses can provide the most relevant measures of risk of health outcomes in populations exposed to coal mining by-products, this kind of studies are seldom implemented as part of the impact assessment methods. To review the use of human epidemiological analyses in the methods used to assess the impacts of coal mining, a systematic search in the peer review literature was implemented following the PRISMA protocol. A synthesis analysis identified the methods and the measures used in the selected publications to develop a thematic review and discussion. The major methodological approaches to assess the impacts of coal mining are environmental impact assessment (EIA), health impact assessment (HIA), social impact assessment (SIA) and environmental health impact assessment (EHIA). The measures used to assess the impacts of coal mining on health were classified as the estimates from non-human-based studies such as health risk assessment (HRA) and the measures of risk from human epidemiological analyses. The inclusion of human epidemiological estimates of the populations exposed, especially the general populations in the vicinity of the mining activities, is seldom found in impact assessment applications for coal mining. These methods rather incorporate HRA measures or other sources of evidence such as qualitative analyses and surveys. The implementation of impact assessment methods without estimates of the risk of health outcomes relevant to the potentially exposed populations affects their reliability to address the environmental and health impacts of coal mining. This is particularly important for EIA applications because these are incorporated in regulatory frameworks globally. The effective characterization of the impacts of coal mining on health requires quantitative estimates of the risk, including the risk measures from epidemiological analyses of relevant human health data.
煤炭开采对健康的潜在影响已通过应用影响评估方法得到解决,这些方法利用定性和定量分析的结果来支持其结论和建议。尽管人类流行病学分析可以为接触煤炭开采副产品的人群的健康结果风险提供最相关的衡量标准,但这种研究很少作为影响评估方法的一部分实施。为了审查人类流行病学分析在评估煤炭开采影响的方法中的使用,根据 PRISMA 协议在同行评议文献中进行了系统搜索。综合分析确定了所选出版物中用于开发主题审查和讨论的方法和措施。评估煤炭开采影响的主要方法包括环境影响评估(EIA)、健康影响评估(HIA)、社会影响评估(SIA)和环境健康影响评估(EHIA)。用于评估煤炭开采对健康影响的措施分为非基于人类的研究的估计值,例如健康风险评估(HRA)和人类流行病学分析的风险衡量值。在煤炭开采影响评估应用中,很少包括接触人群(尤其是采矿活动附近的一般人群)的人类流行病学估计值。这些方法通常包含 HRA 措施或其他证据来源,如定性分析和调查。在没有对潜在暴露人群的健康结果风险进行估计的情况下实施影响评估方法会影响其可靠性,无法解决煤炭开采的环境和健康影响。这对于 EIA 应用尤为重要,因为这些方法被纳入了全球监管框架中。要有效描述煤炭开采对健康的影响,需要对风险进行定量估计,包括对相关人类健康数据进行流行病学分析的风险衡量值。