ArticleThe World Allergy Organization journal2024
A global survey addressing sustainability of pollen monitoring.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aerobiology in Africa: a continent-wide review of pollen, fungal spores, and allergy risk.Aerobiologia · 2026Review
- Monitoring, distribution and clinical relevance of airborne pollen and fern spores in Southeast Asia - A systematic review.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2025Review
- Aerobiology matters: Why people in the community access pollen information and how they use it.Clinical and translational allergy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.