ArticlePloS one2024
Lead exposure sources and public health investigations for children with elevated blood lead in England, 2014 to 2022.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLead exposure at any concentration can adversely impact health, with children being more vulnerable to its effects. In England, children with an elevated blood lead concentration (BLC) are reported to Health Protection Teams (HPTs) for public health investigation. A detailed review of these cases has not yet been conducted.
objectivesThe objectives of this study were to describe the demographics, likely setting and sources of lead exposure, risk behaviours, public health investigations and outcomes for children aged <16 years with a BLC requiring public health action reported to HPTs between 2014-2022 in England.
methodsData were collected via a lookback questionnaire and a live enhanced surveillance questionnaire. Data were deduplicated, cleaned and results summarised as numbers and percentages using R studio. A thematic analysis was conducted on qualitative responses to a question relating to problems experienced during case investigation.
resultsThere were 340 cases in our study: the majority were aged 1-4 years old (53%) and male (69%). Ethnicity data was poorly recorded. A higher than expected proportion (31%) lived in the most deprived areas. Pica (76%) and learning difficulties (60%) were often present. Cases were primarily exposed to lead in the domestic setting (92%) with paint (43%) and soil (29%) the most common exposures. Most cases lived in rented accommodation (63%), with a higher proportion in social rentals (48%) than privately rented (37%). Case investigations were resource intensive and poor stakeholder engagement/response was most frequently identified as challenging by HPTs.
conclusionsLead exposure is harmful to children and requires public health and clinical management, which can be complex and challenging. Prevention of lead exposure in children should be the focus of intervention efforts. Outreach, engagement and preventative work should focus on both renters and homeowners. Collecting ethnicity data consistently may enable identification of more specific groups at increased risk of lead exposure in England.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.