Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42512198›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026

Challenges Associated with Monitoring Long-Term Health Effects After a Major Accident: Lessons from a Large Chemical Fire in England.

Brandon Parkes, Katie Hopgood, Siobhan Farmer, Bethan Davies, Frédéric B Piel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Brandon ParkesSmall Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU), Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, 90 Wood Lane, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9583-0669
Katie HopgoodGloucestershire County Council, Shire Hall, Westgate Street, Gloucester GL1 2TG, UK.
Siobhan FarmerGloucestershire County Council, Shire Hall, Westgate Street, Gloucester GL1 2TG, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9442-5322
Bethan DaviesSmall Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU), Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, 90 Wood Lane, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6585-7641
Frédéric B PielSmall Area Health Statistics Unit (SAHSU), Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, 90 Wood Lane, London W12 0BZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8131-7728

Funding

Gloucestershire County Council NAMedical Research Council MR/S019669/1National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR200880National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR200992
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Major incidents, such as large fires and floods, often trigger a complex series of environmental and health risk assessments involving multiple institutions and authorities. They can also lead to long-lasting concerns from members of the local communities about the possible impact on their health and environment. Here, we use the example of a large fire that occurred in 2000 at a chemical storage site in Sandhurst, Gloucestershire, England, to contrast evidence from official reports and scientific studies with the expectations of members of the local community. We reflect on how the handling of such an incident has evolved over the last two decades and how public involvement can be further improved in the future. Firstly, we present the results of a 20-year follow-up (2001-2020) retrospective small-area ecological epidemiological study with rates of overall cancer incidence, all-cause mortality and hospital admissions for respiratory disease in the exposed area compared with rates in the South West region of England. We also studied the ten years preceding the fire (1991-2000). Secondly, we discuss the limitations of these findings to alleviate the concerns of the local community. Finally, we use this case study to make recommendations about how to better manage this balance between scientific evidence and public concerns for future incidents. In line with earlier reports, the 20-year follow-up study did not identify any major increase in relative risks for cancer or mortality. Although an increase in admissions for respiratory disease was identified, this was also observed before the fire, suggesting that this may be due to other local factors. Despite these findings, members of the local community still believe that some local cases of cancer were caused by the fire. As rigorous as a long-term epidemiological study can be, it cannot determine causality between an incident and individual cases for a given health outcome, nor can it make up for the absence of data not-or only partly-collected after the incident (e.g., individual-level health register). This case study further highlights that engaging with local communities and managing their expectations and planning potential long-term follow-up studies immediately after a major incident should be carefully considered.

Indexed as

Chemical Hazard ReleaseFiresNeoplasmsRespiratory Tract DiseasesEnglandHumansRetrospective Studiesaccidental firecommunity engagementecological epidemiological study

Identifiers

PMID42512198
PMCPMC13409744

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.