ArticleJAMA health forum2026
Air Quality Risks in Public Housing.
Article in JAMA health forum, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Public housing residents face elevated environmental health risks, yet indoor air quality in these settings remains underexamined. Objective: To evaluate indoor air quality in public housing 5 years after implementation of the federal smoke-free housing policy and compare it with outdoor air quality in the same regions. Design, Setting, and Participants: A 1-year cohort study of indoor air quality (particulate matter ≤2.5 μm in diameter [PM2.5]) across 12 multifamily public housing communities in southeastern Virgina for individuals 65 years and older or persons with disability in cities with the highest rated outdoor air quality. Indoor PM2.5 was continuously measured using 117 air quality monitors in shared common spaces and hallways of buildings. Outdoor data were obtained from 3 nearby Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitoring stations. Data were collected from January 1 to December 31, 2023. Exposure: Federal smoke-free housing policy implemented in 2018 aimed at reducing indoor pollution from tobacco smoke. Main Outcomes and Measures: Daily PM2.5 concentrations indoors and outdoors classified using EPA-defined risk categories. A repeated-measures linear mixed model was used to assess daily concentration differences over the 1-year study timeframe. Results: In this study of 12 public housing communities, indoor PM2.5 levels were significantly higher than outdoor levels (mean indoor PM2.5, 23.33 μg/m3; 95% CI, 21.85-24.81 μg/m3; mean outdoor PM2.5, 8.42 μg/m3; 95% CI, 5.49-11.35 μg/m3; P < .001), with 95% of daily indoor readings in the moderate (PM2.5, 9.1-35.4 μg/m3) or worse EPA risk categories, while 69% of outdoor readings were classified as good (PM2.5, 0-9 μg/m3). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that, despite a strong outdoor air quality rating and a smoke-free housing policy, indoor air quality in public housing remains poor. The findings underscore the need for strong, multifaceted interventions to reduce indoor pollution and promote environmental health equity.
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.