SynthesisBMJ open2024
Emission reduction strategies and health: a systematic review on the tools and methods to assess co-benefits.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe 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.
designSystematic review conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and GreenFILE were searched from January of 2017 to March of 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included original, peer-reviewed journal articles that described emission (ambient air pollutant and greenhouse gases) reduction strategies and assessed their health co-benefits. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers employed standardised methods to search, screen and code the included studies, documenting their findings in an Excel spreadsheet.
resultsFrom 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.
conclusionsEmission 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. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022332480.
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.