Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39634514›Full record

ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2024

A global survey addressing sustainability of pollen monitoring.

Divya Dwarakanath, Andelija Milic, Paul J Beggs, Darren Wraith, Janet M Davies

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The World Allergy Organization journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors.

Divya DwarakanathSchool of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia.
Andelija MilicSchool of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia.
Paul J BeggsSchool of Natural Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales 2109, Australia.
Darren WraithSchool of Public Health and Social Work, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia.
Janet M DaviesSchool of Biomedical Science, Faculty of Health, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland 4059, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Contemporary airborne pollen records underpin environmental health warnings, yet how pollen monitoring networks are sustained is poorly understood. This study investigated by whom and how pollen monitoring sites across the globe are managed and funded. Methods: Coordinators listed in the Worldwide Map of Pollen Monitoring Stations were invited to complete a digital questionnaire designed to survey the people and organisations involved, types, and duration of funding sources, as well as uses, purpose, and sharing of pollen information. Quantitative data were analysed by descriptive statistics and open text responses were examined by qualitative thematic analysis. Results: Eighty-four of 241 (35%) coordinators from 37 countries responded. Universities (42%) and hospitals/health services (29%) were most commonly responsible for monitoring. Most sites involved employees (87%) in pollen monitoring, of whom many were part-time (41%) or casual (11%), as well as students (29%) and volunteers (6%). Pollen monitoring was additional to core duties for over one-third of sites (35%), and 25% reported pollen monitoring was an in-kind contribution. Whilst funding for pollen monitoring was often sourced from government agencies (33%), government research grants (24%), or non-government grants (8%), 92% reported more than 1 funding source, and 99% reported dependence on "partnerships or grants requiring co-contributions", indicating a complex resourcing structure, of short duration (median 3 years). Common reasons why airborne pollen was monitored included clinical allergy, population environmental health, aerobiology and forecasting. Climate change, research, and social duty were also referenced. Conclusions: Aerobiological monitoring is currently sustained by complex, insecure, and insufficient resourcing, as well as reliance on volunteerism. There are multiple direct, health-related, and other important uses of aerobiology data, that are aligned to multiple dimensions of sustainability. Evidence from this study can be used to inform the design of strategies to sustain the generation of aerobiology data.

Indexed as

AerobiologyAllergyPollen monitoringSustainability

Identifiers

PMID39634514
PMCPMC11612360

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.