Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28335491›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2017

Health and Wellbeing of Occupants in Highly Energy Efficient Buildings: A Field Study.

Peter Wallner, Peter Tappler, Ute Munoz, Bernhard Damberger, Anna Wanka, Michael Kundi, Hans-Peter Hutter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Housing and Health: Here We Go Again.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Indoor Air Quality in Passivhaus Dwellings: A Literature Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Review
  7. Indoor Air Quality and Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Peter WallnerInstitute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090 Vienna, Austria. peter.wallner4@gmail.com.
Peter TapplerAustrian Institute for Healthy and Ecological Building, Alserbachstraße 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria. p.tappler@innenraumanalytik.at.
Ute MunozAustrian Institute for Healthy and Ecological Building, Alserbachstraße 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria. u.munoz@innenraumanalytik.at.
Bernhard DambergerAustrian Institute for Healthy and Ecological Building, Alserbachstraße 5, 1090 Vienna, Austria. b.damberger@innenraumanalytik.at.
Anna WankaInstitute of Sociology, University of Vienna, Rooseveltplatz 2, 1090 Vienna, Austria. anna.wanka@univie.ac.at.
Michael KundiInstitute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090 Vienna, Austria. michael.kundi@meduniwien.ac.at.
Hans-Peter HutterInstitute of Environmental Health, Center for Public Health, Medical University Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1090 Vienna, Austria. hans-peter.hutter@meduniwien.ac.at.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Passive houses and other highly energy-efficient buildings need mechanical ventilation. However, ventilation systems in such houses are regarded with a certain degree of skepticism by parts of the public due to alleged negative health effects. Within a quasi-experimental field study, we investigated if occupants of two types of buildings (mechanical vs. natural ventilation) experience different health, wellbeing and housing satisfaction outcomes and if associations with indoor air quality exist. We investigated 123 modern homes (test group: with mechanical ventilation; control group: naturally ventilated) built in the years 2010 to 2012 in the same geographic area and price range. Interviews of occupants based on standardized questionnaires and measurements of indoor air quality parameters were conducted twice (three months after moving in and one year later). In total, 575 interviews were performed (respondents' mean age 37.9 ± 9 years in the test group, 37.7 ± 9 years in the control group). Occupants of the test group rated their overall health status and that of their children not significantly higher than occupants of the control group at both time points. Adult occupants of the test group reported dry eyes statistically significantly more frequently compared to the control group (19.4% vs. 12.5%). Inhabitants of energy-efficient, mechanically ventilated homes rated the quality of indoor air and climate significantly higher. Self-reported health improved more frequently in the mechanically ventilated new homes (

Indexed as

Health StatusHousingAdultAir Pollution, IndoorCarbon DioxideChildClimateFacility Design and ConstructionFemaleFormaldehydeHumansHumidityMaleMiddle AgedPerceptionSurveys and QuestionnairesCarbon DioxideFormaldehydeenergy efficient buildingshousingindoor air qualitymechanical ventilationnatural ventilationperceptionself-reported health

Identifiers

PMID28335491
PMCPMC5369150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.