Abdala Sammila Andrade, Khomsi Kenza, Houdou Anass, El Marouani Ihssane, El Badisy Imad, Najmi Houda, Obtel Majdouline, Belyamani Lahcen, Ibrahimi Azeddine, Khalis Mohamed
Department of Public Health and Clinical Research, Mohammed VI Center for Research and Innovation, Rabat, Morocco
Mohammed VI International School of Public Health, Mohammed VI University of Sciences and Health, Casablanca, Casablanca-Settat, Morocco.
BMJ Open. 2024 Dec 9;14(12):e083214. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-083214.
The objective of this study is to review the current literature on the health co-benefits of emission reduction strategies and the methods and tools available to assess them.
Systematic review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and GreenFILE were searched from January of 2017 to March of 2023.
We included original, peer-reviewed journal articles that described emission (ambient air pollutant and greenhouse gases) reduction strategies and assessed their health co-benefits.
Two independent reviewers employed standardised methods to search, screen and code the included studies, documenting their findings in an Excel spreadsheet.
From 6687 articles, 82 were included. Most studies show that emissions reduction strategies improve air quality, reducing mortality and morbidity. Health risk assessment and health impact assessment are common, though procedures may cause confusion. About 33% used established models like the integrated exposure-response and global exposure mortality model. Out of all studies, 16% of them used Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program-Community Edition. Only 17.8% carried out cost-benefit analyses, but these show economic worth in investing in emission reduction strategies.
Emission reduction strategies significantly enhance human health, with potential co-benefits offsetting intervention costs, which can be an incentive for action in low and middle-income countries. This review emphasises investing in cost-benefit analyses and research, particularly in regions with limited studies on emission reduction and health co-benefits. It provides decision-makers insights into selecting assessment methods and underscores the ongoing need for model and tool evaluation.
CRD42022332480.
本研究的目的是回顾当前关于减排策略的健康协同效益以及可用于评估这些效益的方法和工具的文献。
按照系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目指南进行系统评价。
检索了2017年1月至2023年3月期间的PubMed、Scopus、科学引文索引、ScienceDirect和绿色文件库。
我们纳入了描述减排策略（环境空气污染物和温室气体）并评估其健康协同效益的原创性、经过同行评审的期刊文章。
两名独立评审员采用标准化方法对纳入的研究进行检索、筛选和编码，并将研究结果记录在Excel电子表格中。
从6687篇文章中，纳入了82篇。大多数研究表明，减排策略可改善空气质量，降低死亡率和发病率。健康风险评估和健康影响评估很常见，不过相关程序可能会造成混淆。约33%的研究使用了综合暴露-反应模型和全球暴露死亡率模型等既定模型。在所有研究中，16%使用了环境效益映射与分析程序社区版。只有17.8%的研究进行了成本效益分析，但这些分析表明投资减排策略具有经济价值。
减排策略可显著增进人类健康，其潜在的协同效益可抵消干预成本，这可成为低收入和中等收入国家采取行动的动力。本综述强调投资于成本效益分析和研究，特别是在减排与健康协同效益研究有限的地区。它为决策者提供了选择评估方法的见解，并强调了持续进行模型和工具评估的必要性。
CRD42022332480。
