Environmental health action can improve population health in a sustainable manner and improve equity. Such action can also make a major contribution toward achieving 6 of the 8 Millennium Development Goals and thus may be a prerequisite for their success.
The role of environmental management in improving health has been neglected in recent years. This neglect is partly due to competition for resources and policymakers’ attention from more immediately obvious health threats arising from, for example, the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It also results from the perceptions that environmental risk factors have only a relatively small impact on the global burden of disease and that investments in environmental management have low cost-effectiveness in comparison with other health interventions.
In reality, there is very little evidence to support these perceptions. Although the role of environmental interventions in disease prevention has been assessed for selected risks and diseases, until recently, there has been no systematic and consistent assessment of the global burden of disease resulting from environmental risk factors or of the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of these interventions.
The WHO has now completed a study designed to estimate the disease burden attributable to the environment to address the full potential of environmental interventions to improve human health.1 This study was based on a 6-year process to quantify how much disease can be attributed to various environmental risks. In this commentary, we describe the methods used to arrive at these estimates, and we summarize the key findings. We present a systematic review of the literature for quantitative assessments of population health impacts from environmental risks with information gaps completed by quantitative estimates from experts in the relevant fields. We provide attributable fractions and global disease burden due to the environment for every considered disease and injury category, and we outline the areas where environmental interventions are likely to bring the greatest health gains. Full details of this analysis are provided in the comprehensive publication.1
Previous estimates of the global burden of disease due to the environment were 23%2 and 25% to 33%3; for countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the estimate was 2% to 5%.4 Furthermore, the WHO recently coordinated the Comparative Risk Assessment, which quantified the health impacts of 26 major risks, 6 of which were environmental, using a comparative framework.5,6 We based our work on these previous studies and further improved or completed them by: 1) enlarging the scope to include most of the risks contained in the environment (eg, 8 other major risk factors in addition to the 6 explored in the Comparative Risk Assessment as well as the work environment, which had not been included in the OECD study); 2) systematically reviewing 102 diseases and injuries as to their environmental causes (eg, the Comparative Risk Assessment reviewed 42 diseases for selected environmental causes but covered the majority of environmental causes of only 2 diseases); 3) consulting experts to complete gaps in the evidence to obtain a more comprehensive estimate of the potential of healthy environments to prevent disease; and 4) limiting the environment to only the “reasonably modifiable environment” to improve the policy relevance of results. In this review, more than 100 experts throughout the world were consulted to provide attributable fractions of 83 diseases and 2 risk factors (physical inactivity and malnutrition), providing a substantially greater coverage than achieved in previous systematic reviews such as the Comparative Risk Assessment. The experts are all listed in the full report1 and their contribution is gratefully acknowledged.
WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENT? WHAT CAN BE PREVENTED?
To be relevant to policy, the definition of environment used in this study was “the physical, chemical and biologic environment to the human host and related behavior, but only those parts that could reasonably be modified,” ie, that which can be altered with existing interventions and without impairing other ecosystem functions.
This definition included risks such as the pollution of air, water, and soil; ionizing radiation; noise; occupational risks; the built environment, including housing and road design; land use patterns; agricultural methods and irrigation schemes; and manmade changes to the climate and ecosystems. To illustrate the work environment, infections acquired during occupation such as from needlestick injuries in healthcare workers, or sexually transmitted diseases among commercial sex workers, are included. Behavior related to environment was included such as lack of hand-washing related to the availability of sanitary facilities that could lead to the contamination of food. Although ultraviolet radiation per se cannot be acted on (other than through manmade atmospheric changes), its effects were included, because they can be modulated by personal protection behavior.
Excluded from the definition are alcohol and tobacco consumption; diet; natural environments that cannot reasonably be modified such as rivers, lakes, and wetlands; and natural biologic agents such as pollen in the outdoor environment. The social environment and behaviors not specifically related to the environment (eg, unemployment, cultural pressures, and so on) were also excluded from the working definition. However, some aspects of the social environment could overlap with the physical environment but were not included here. Examples include advertising and the absence of healthy food choices, which lead to a diet of low-quality food. Although the more distal economic and social determinants of occupational conditions such as job security are in principle included in the definition, they could to a large extent not be assessed here.
The attributable fraction is the proportional reduction in disease or death that would occur in an exposed population if exposure to a risk were reduced.7,8 In this analysis, the environmental risks were reduced, not to zero, but rather to a baseline exposure (or counterfactual) that was “reasonably achievable” in the short or medium term. Many diseases can be prevented by reducing several different risks, and the attributable fractions for the risks could in such a case sum to greater than 100%.9
ESTIMATION OF ATTRIBUTABLE FRACTIONS
For each of the 102 diseases and injuries listed in the WHO global disease statistics for the year 2002,10,11 the literature was systematically reviewed to compile summaries of the best available evidence of population health impacts from environmental risks. The search terms included each disease or injury (listed in Table 1) and “environment” or any of the relevant environmental risks or occupational groups at risk. Medline was searched for the last 20 years, and additional articles and reports were handsearched based on the reference lists of main publications or lists provided by experts consulted in this survey. When available, specific databases were searched (ie, AIDS epidemic update, HIV/AIDS surveillance database).12,13
For each disease or injury, the identified literature was selected in the following order of priority: 1) global estimates for selected environmental risks (such as Comparative Risk Assessment5,6); 2) estimates of population health impacts at the regional or national level; 3) meta-analysis or reviews on disease reduction from environmental interventions or determinants of health; and 4) individual studies of interventions and determinants of health. Summaries of the best available evidence according to these criteria were then prepared and submitted to at least 3 experts who were asked to provide their estimates of fractions attributable to the environment for one or more diseases or injuries (or their groupings). Diseases, injuries, or their groupings were classified according to the International Classification of Diseases.14
Experts were selected on the basis of their international reputation in the area of disease or the relevant environmental risk factor. For balance, experts from across the globe were sought, particularly for diseases that showed strong geographic variation. They were asked to provide their estimate of the fraction attributable to the reasonably modifiable environment (best estimates and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) on the basis of the summary evidence for the disease or injury category of their expertise. Experts were also given the option to provide estimates by sex, age group, or region.
The expert replies were assumed to have a triangular distribution defined by the best estimate and 95% CI they provided. For each disease or injury, the probability distributions from individual experts were combined by summing the probabilities at each value of attributable fraction.
We used the following equation to calculate the probability distribution of attributable fractions:
Equation (Uncited)Image Tools
where AF = attributable fraction, P = resulting probability at attributable fraction AF, p = individual expert probability at attributable fraction AF, and E = experts.
The resulting mean attributable fraction was defined as the overall best estimate. A new 95% CI was calculated from the combined probability distribution of the attributable fractions. An example for road traffic injuries in developing countries is given in Figure 1.
With this method, extreme estimates (or outliers) can lead to large CIs. For this reason, if an expert estimate did not overlap with any of the other expert estimates, the outlier point estimate was used to define the relevant boundary of the CI for the disease instead of using the CI from the expert. When no uncertainty intervals were specified for the Comparative Risk Assessment or other global estimates, ±30% lower and upper boundaries around the best estimate were used. No CIs were used when the attributable fraction was 100%. Confidence intervals for the summary statistics were calculated from the probability distributions for the attributable fractions using simulation techniques15 and the software package @risk 4.5 for Excel (Palisade Europe UK Ltd., London, UK).
ESTIMATION OF DISEASE BURDEN ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ENVIRONMENT
To obtain the global burden of disease due to the modifiable environment, the attributable fractions obtained in this study were multiplied by the relevant WHO global disease statistics for 200210,11 for each disease or injury, 14 subregions (see footnote of Fig. 2), age group, and sex, as shown subsequently.
The following equations were used to calculate attributable mortality and disease burden:
Equation (Uncited)Image Tools
Equation (Uncited)Image Tools
where AM = attributable mortality, M = mortality, B = disease burden computed as disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and AB = attributable disease burden in DALYs, stratified in regional, sex, and age groups when relevant.
MAIN FINDINGS OF THE REPORT
More than 100 experts provided approximately 200 quantitative estimates for the environment attributable fractions of diseases and injuries based on the systematic literature reviews. Of the 102 diseases and injuries listed in the WHO disease statistics,10,11 85 were considered to have environmental contributions. The earlier Comparative Risk Assessment study provided fractions attributable to selected environmental risks for 42 diseases or injuries, but all major environmental risks were addressed for only 2 categories (ie, low back pain and hearing loss). Experts were therefore consulted to provide estimates of attributable fractions for 83 diseases or injuries and 2 risk factors (physical inactivity and malnutrition). A minimum of 3 and maximum of 11 experts provided quantitative estimates for each disease or injury category. Most experts provided estimates for only one disease or injury, but some had expertise in several categories.
The main areas of potential impact of environmental interventions are summarized in Table 1, and further details on the linkages between diseases and environmental risks are given in the full report.1
The fractions attributable to the environment as determined in the WHO study, as well as the resulting disease burden in deaths and DALYs, are summarized in Table 2 by disease and injury. Regional and age-specific results are provided in the full-text document.14
Environmental risks contributed 24% (95% CI = 21–27%) to the global burden of disease measured in DALYs and by 23% (21–25%) to all deaths. The diseases with the largest environmental contributions globally are displayed in Figure 2 for the year 2002. Together, the 5 diseases with the largest contributions—diarrhea, lower respiratory infections, other unintentional injuries, malaria, and road traffic injuries—were responsible for more than 10% of the global burden of disease (in DALYs). The environmental attributable fractions varied widely across regions (Fig. 3). Children carried a disproportionate share of the disease burden; in children 0 to 14 years old, environmental attributable fractions of all deaths were as high as 36% (31–40%).
Diarrheal diseases, lower respiratory infections, neuropsychiatric conditions, and cardiovascular diseases are the largest contributors to global disease with an environmental component. These diseases together accounted for more than one third of the disease burden from environmental risks. Diarrheal diseases and lower respiratory infections mostly affected children in developing countries, whereas neuropsychiatric disorders and cardiovascular diseases mainly affected adults in both developed and developing countries.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The WHO report provides a systematic and comprehensive estimate of how much of the global burden of disease can be prevented by environmental management. Only the reasonably modifiable environment was taken into account; therefore, the joint evidence from interventions studies and expert estimates indicate the potential burden of disease that could reasonably be prevented by environmental interventions. The study represents a comprehensive estimate, because all major diseases and environmental risk factors were included. It adds to previous compilations of evidence2–6 and presents results in terms of mortality and a common metric (DALYs).
A limitation of the study is the lack of the type of evidence that is available from other areas of public health such as treatment of disease. This lack leads to larger uncertainties, and the evidence may be improved as new studies emerge. Nevertheless, this is the best available evidence and provides decision-makers with indicative information as to where environmental modification has the greatest potential to alleviate the burden of disease.
The study purposefully erred to be conservative in estimating the environmental contribution to global burden of disease. The scientific literature, the main basis for expert opinion, was poor for many diseases or risks, and experts were therefore not able to consider the full links between environment and disease. This lack of evidence for some environmental risks include contaminants in our air, water, and food, and other risks in our environment, which often have complex linkages with disease that cannot be measured with current risk assessment tools for populations. The results can, however, be used to identify the research gaps for many diseases, risk factors, and integrated approaches.
The study does not address the cost or cost-effectiveness of interventions, which will be addressed in a later report.
Within these limitations, the compilation of the evidence of environmental contributions to all diseases presents us with the following implications.
Environmental Risks Account for a Large Fraction of the Global Disease Burden
The evidence that modifiable environmental factors contribute to 85 of 102 diseases, and account for 24% of the global disease burden, represents an important increase compared with previous systematically collected evidence (eg, 10% as estimated by the Comparative Risk Assessment) and highlights the great potential of environmental action for improving public health. This potential is likely understated because the methods applied in this study are likely to have led to conservative estimates of the environmental disease burden.
Developing Countries Bear Most of the Environmental Disease Burden
Currently, people in developing countries lose many more healthy life years to environmental causes than do people in developed countries. For infectious diseases, the per capita loss of healthy life years from environmental risks is 15 times higher in developing countries and approximately twice as high for unintentional injuries. Overall, there was no difference in the disease burden between developed and developing countries for noncommunicable diseases, although per capita rates for cancers and cardiovascular diseases were approximately twice as high in developed countries.
Children Are at Greatest Risk From Environmental Factors
Children experience a disproportionate share of the environmental disease burden with the per capita rate for DALYs lost in children under 5 years being 5 times that in the total population. Diarrheal diseases, lower respiratory infections, malaria, and malnutrition (including the impact of malnutrition on infectious diseases) all have a large environmental component and disproportionately impact on children.
Equitable and Sustainable Interventions Are Available
Environmental health actions generally produce longer-term impacts that go beyond the health sector. Providing safe water and adequate sanitation, for example, can return 7 times the initial investment.156 Similarly, a switch to cleaner fuels can produce returns of 3 times the investment over a 10-year period.157
Interventions for Healthy Environments Can Have an Important Impact Toward Achieving the Millennium Development Goals
Environmental interventions contribute to goal 1: to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, because many environmental risks disproportionately affect poorer populations. Environmentally caused disease can also reduce earnings, which in turn reinforces the cycle of poverty and hunger. Environmental action to relieve the burden of disease would thus help to break the poverty. The 60-fold difference in per capita malnutrition rates between the highest and lowest region underline the potential to combat these inequalities with environmental action. Environmental action to reduce the disease burden would contribute to goal 2: to achieve universal primary education, because healthy children have more time to spend on education. Children spending less time collecting solid fuels or drinking water would also have more time for education. Installing adequate latrines at schools would improve the attendance of girls. The contributions of environmental modification to goal 3—to promote gender equality and empower women—are similar to those for goal 2, because women, like children, often spend time collecting drinking water or solid fuels. Environmental action to provide drinking water, for example, would free the women to generate income and improve the nutritional status of the family, because women are generally the main caregivers for household members.
Diarrheal diseases, lower respiratory infections, and malaria all have large environmental components with attributable fractions of 94%, 42%, and 41%, respectively, and all are big child killers. Interventions against these diseases would thus contribute to goal 4: to reduce the child mortality rate.
Environmental interventions to provide safe and sustainable sources of water and clean energy supplies could reduce the number of deaths from diarrhea and lower respiratory infections by 2 million per year. Environmental-related transmission of disease results in half a million deaths annually from malaria and to one fourth of a million deaths from HIV/AIDS. Environmental action thus makes significant and even necessary contributions to achieving goal 6: to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases. Key environmental interventions for goal 6 such as providing clean household fuels, safe water, and sanitation greatly contribute to goal 7: to ensure a sustainable environment. Environmental health action thus has the potential to make a significant contribution toward achieving the Millennium Development Goals and may even be essential for success.
In summary, we believe that this study presents a useful analytic framework for collecting and presenting scientific evidence that is of direct relevance to policymakers and other stakeholders both in measuring the overall impact of environmental risk factors on human health and in highlighting specific areas in which environmental interventions should bring about the greatest human health gains. Applying this approach, and incorporating the best available evidence, suggests that creating healthier environments can prevent approximately one fourth of the disease burden globally in a way that is sustainable, improves equity, and brings multiple benefits. It therefore supports the case that interventions for healthy environments should be an important component of any strategy to improve global public health.
2. Health and Environment in Sustainable Development.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.
3. Smith KR, Corvalán FC, Kjellström T. How much ill health is attributable to environmental factors? Epidemiology
4. Melse JM, de Hollander AEM. Environment and Health Within the OECD Region: Lost Health, Lost Money.
Background document to the OECD Environmental Outlook. Bilthoven: RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and the Environment); 2001.
5. World Health Report 2002—Reducing Risks, Promoting Healthy Life.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
6. Ezzati, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
7. Greenland S. Bias in methods for deriving standardized morbidity ratio in and attributable fraction estimates. Stat Med
8. Miettinen OS. Proportion of disease caused or prevented by a given exposure, trait or intervention. Am J Epidemiol
9. Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al. Comparative Risk Assessment Collaborative Group. Lancet
10. World Health Report 2004—Changing History.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
11. World Health Organization. Global Burden of Disease Estimates [WHO web site]. Available at: www.who.evidence
, under ‘Burden of Disease Project.’ Accessed May 15, 2006.
12. UNAIDS, WHO. AIDS Epidemic Update—December 2004.
Geneva: Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; 2004.
13. US Census Bureau, UNAIDS. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Data Base.
Washington, DC: US Census Bureau; 2004.
14. ICD-10—International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems,
10th rev, vol 1. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1992.
15. King G, Tomz M, Wittenberg J. Making the most of statistical analyses: improving interpretation and presentation. Am J Pol Sci
16. Smith KR, Mehta S, Maeusezahl-Feuz M. Indoor air pollution from solid household fuels. In: Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
17. Cohen AJ, Anderson HR, Ostro BUrban air pollution. In: Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
18. Forastiere F, Lo Presti E, Agabiti N, et al. Impatto sanitario dell'esposizione al fumo di sigaretta in Italia. [Health impact of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in Italy.] Epidemiol Prev
19. Kirkwood BR, Gove S, Rogers S, et al. Potential interventions for the prevention of childhood pneumonia in developing countries: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ
20. Krieger J, Higgins DL. Housing and health: time again for public health action. Am J Public Health
21. Prüss-Üstün A, Kay D, Fewtrell LUnsafe water, sanitation and hygiene. In: Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks. Geneva World Health Organization; 2004.
22. Pruss A. Review of epidemiological studies on health effects from exposure to recreational water. Int J Epidemiol
23. Spencer JL, Guan J. Public health implications related to spread of pathogens in manure from livestock and poultry operations. Methods Mol Biol
24. Morse SS. Factors and determinants of disease emergence. Rev Sci Tech
25. McMichael AJ, Campbell-Lendrum D, Wilkinson PGlobal climate change. In: Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
26. Utzinger J, Tozan Y, Singer BH. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of environmental management for malaria control. Trop Med Int Health
27. Ault SK. Environmental management: a re-emerging vector control strategy. Am J Trop Med Hyg
28. Bos R, Mills A. Financial and economic aspects of environmental management for vector control. Parasitology Today
29. Manual on Environmental Management for Mosquito Control. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1982.
30. Sutter EE, Ballard RC. Community participation in the control of trachoma in Gazankulu. Soc Sci Med
31. Emerson PM, Lindsay SW, Walraven GE, et al. Effect of fly control on trachoma and diarrhoea. Lancet
32. Esrey SA, Potash JB, Roberts L, et al. Effects of improved water supply and sanitation on ascariasis, diarrhoea, dracunculiasis, hookworm infection, schistosomiasis, and trachoma. Bull World Health Organ. 1999;69:609–621.
33. Emerson PM, Cairncross S, Bailey RL, et al. Review of the evidence base for the ‘F’ and ‘E’ components of the SAFE strategy for trachoma control. Trop Med Int Health
34. Prüss A, Mariotti SP. Preventing trachoma through environmental sanitation: a review of the evidence base. Bull World Health Organ
35. Huang YX, Manderson L. The social and economic context and determinants of schistosomiasis japonica. Acta Trop
36. Benenson AS. Control of Communicable Disease Manual, 16th ed. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1995.
37. Bos R. The importance of peridomestic environmental management for the control of vectors of Chagas disease. Rev Argent Microbiol
38. Ramsey JM, Cruz-Celis A, Salgado L, et al. Efficacy of pyrethroid insecticides against domestic and peridomestic populations of Triatoma pallidipennis
and Triatoma barberi
(Reduviidae: Triatominae) vectors of Chagas disease in Mexico. J Med Entomol
39. Rojas-De-Arias A. Chagas disease prevention through improved housing using an ecosystem approach to health. Cad Saude Publica
40. Erlanger TE, Keiser J, Caldas de Castro M, et al. Effect of water resource development and management on lymphatic filariasis, and estimates of populations at risk. Am J Trop Med Hyg
41. Meyrowitsch DW, Nguyen DT, Hoang TH, et al. A review of the present status of lymphatic filariasis in Vietnam Acta Trop
42. Appawu MA, Dadzie SK, Baffoe-Wilmot A, et al. Lymphatic filariasis in Ghana: entomological investigation of transmission dynamics and intensity in communities served by irrigation systems in the Upper East Region of Ghana. Trop Med Int Health
43. Mouchet J, Brengues J. [Agriculture–health interface in the field of epidemiology of vector-borne diseases and the control of vectors.]. Bull Soc Pathol Exot
44. Rozendaal JA. Vector Control. Methods for Use by Individuals and Communities. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1997.
45. Campbell-Lendrum D, Dujardin JP, Martinez E, et al. Domestic and peridomestic transmission of American cutaneous leishmaniasis: changing epidemiological patterns present new control opportunities. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2001;96:159–162.
46. Desjeux P. The increase in risk factors for leishmaniasis worldwide. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg
47. Bucheton B, Kheir MM, El-Safi SH, et al. The interplay between environmental and host factors during an outbreak of visceral leishmaniasis in eastern Sudan. Microbes Infect
48. Moreira ED Jr, de Souza VM, Sreenivasan M, et al. Peridomestic risk factors for canine leishmaniasis in urban dwellings: new findings from a prospective study in Brazil. Am J Trop Med Hyg
49. Yadon ZE, Rodrigues LC, Davies CR, et al. Indoor and peridomestic transmission of American cutaneous leishmaniasis in north-western Argentina: a retrospective case–control study. Am J Trop Med Hyg
50. Heukelbach J, de Oliveira FA, Kerr-Pontes LR, et al. Risk factors associated with an outbreak of dengue fever in a favela in Fortaleza, north-east Brazil. Trop Med Int Health
51. Keiser J, Maltese MF, Erlanger TE, et al. Effect of irrigated rice agriculture on Japanese encephalitis, including challenges and opportunities for integrated vector management. Acta Trop
52. Evian C, Fox M, MacLeod W, et al. Prevalence of HIV in workforces in southern Africa, 2000–2001. S Afr Med J
53. Ishi K, Suzuku F, Saito A, et al. Prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus, hepatitis B and hepatitis C virus antibodies and hepatitis B antigen among commercial sex workers in Japan. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol
54. Camejo MI, Mata G, Diaz M. Prevalencia de hepatitis B, hepatitis C y sífilis en trabajadoras sexuales de Venezuela. [Prevalence of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and syphilis in female sex workers in Venezuela.]. Rev Salud Publica. 2003;37:339–344.
55. Mak R, Traen A, Claeyssens M, et al. Hepatitis B vaccination for sex workers: do outreach programmes perform better? Sex Transm Infect
56. Prüss-Üstün A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med
57. Trapido AS, Mqoqi NP, Williams BG, et al. Prevalence of occupational lung disease in a random sample of former mineworkers, Libode District, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Am J Ind Med
58. Williams BG, Campbell CM, Mqoqi NPOccupational health, occupational illness: tuberculosis, silicosis and HIV on the South African mines. In: Parker JE, ed. Occupational Lung Disease: An International Perspective. London: Chapman and Hall Medical; 1998:95–103.
59. Corbett EL, Churchyard GJ, Clayton T, et al. Risk factors for pulmonary mycobacterial disease in South African gold miners. A case–control study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
60. Corbett EL, Churchyard GJ, Clayton TC, et al. HIV infection and silicosis: the impact of two potent risk factors on the incidence of mycobacterial disease in South African miners. AIDS
61. Davies JCA, Williams BG, Debeila MA, et al. Asbestos-related lung disease among women in the Northern Province of South Africa. S Afr J Sci
62. Rom WN, Garay SM. Tuberculosis. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2003.
63. Antunes JL, Waldman EA. The impact of AIDS, immigration and housing overcrowding on tuberculosis deaths in Sao Paulo, Brazil, 1994–1998. Soc Sci Med
64. Clark M, Riben P, Nowgesic E. The association of housing density, isolation and tuberculosis in Canadian First Nations Communities. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:940–945.
65. Tuberculosis—the 3rd most frequent infectious disease for health care personnel. Krankenpfl J.
66. Jelip J, Mathew GG, Yusin T, et al. Risk factors of tuberculosis among health-care workers in Sabah, Malaysia. Tuberculosis (Edinb
67. Desai MA, Mehta S, Smith KR. Indoor Smoke From Solid Fuels: Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease at National and Local Levels. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004. WHO Environmental Burden of Disease Series, No. 4.
68. Braun MM, Morse DL, Maguire B, et al. Tuberculosis and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in prisoners. JAMA
69. Eyob G, Gebeyhu M, Goshu S, et al. Increase in tuberculosis incidence among the staff working at the Tuberculosis Demonstration and Training Centre in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: a retrospective cohort study (1989–1998). Int J Tuberc Lung Dis
70. Takeda E, Robazzi ML, Lavrador MA. Occupational risk of acquiring tuberculosis among hospital nursing personnel. Revista Brasileira de Enfermagem
71. Zhang J, Cai WW, Lee DJ. Occupational hazards and pregnancy outcomes. Am J Ind Med
72. Taha TE, Gray RH. Agricultural pesticide exposure and perinatal mortality in central Sudan. Bull World Health Organ
73. Ritz B, Yu F. The effect of ambient carbon monoxide on low birth weight among children born in southern California between 1989 and 1993. Environ Health Perspect
74. Seidler A, Raum E, Arabin B, et al. Maternal occupational exposure to chemical substances and the risk of infants small-for-gestational-age. Am J Ind Med
75. Chen L, Omaye ST. Air pollution and health effects in northern Nevada. Rev Environ Health
76. Longnecker MP, Klebanoff MA, Zhou H, et al. Association between maternal serum concentration of the DDT metabolite DDE and preterm and small-for-gestational-age babies at birth. Lancet
77. Maisonet M, Correa A, Misra D, et al. A review of the literature on the effects of ambient air pollution on fetal growth. Environ Res. 2004;95:106–115.
78. Reznik BI, Minkov IP, Prudkii VI, et al. Environmental pollution and congenital abnormalities. Gig Sanit
79. Czeizel AE, Elek C, Gundy S, et al. Environmental trichlorfon and cluster of congenital abnormalities. Lancet
80. Nurminen T. Maternal pesticide exposure and pregnancy outcome. J Occup Environ Med
81. Ritz B, Yu F, Fruin S, et al. Ambient air pollution and risk of birth defects in Southern California. Am J Epidemiol
82. Checkley W, Gilman RH, Black RE, et al. Effect of water and sanitation on childhood health in a poor Peruvian periurban community. Lancet
83. Esrey SA, Habicht JP, Casella G. The complementary effects of latrines and increased water usage on the growth of infants in rural Lesotho. Am J Epidemiol
84. Esrey SA. Water, waste, and well-being: a multicountry study. Am J Epidemiol
85. Siemiatycki J, Richardson L, Straif K, et al. Listing occupational carcinogens. Environ Health Perspect
86. Taylor R, Cumming R, Woodward A, et al. Passive smoking and lung cancer: a cumulative meta-analysis. Aust N Z J Public Health
87. Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol 83. Lyon: WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2004.
88. Tomatis L, Aitio A, Day NE, et al, eds. Cancer: Causes, Occurrence and Control. IARC Scientific Publications No. 100. Lyon: WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1990.
89. Lucas R. The Global Burden of Disease From Exposure to UV Radiation. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.
90. Concha-Barrientos M, Imel Nelson D, Driscoll TSelected occupational risk factors. In: Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
91. Tennant C. Work-related stress and depressive disorders. J Psychosom Res. 2001;51:697–704.
92. Passchier-Vermeer W, Passchier WF. Noise exposure and public health. Environ Health Perspect
. 2000;108(suppl 1):123–131.
93. Franssen AEM, Kwekkeboom JMI. Effecten van geluid door wegverkeer op de slaap. Een systematische review van studies in de woonomgeving. [Effects from Road Traffic Noise on Sleep. A Systematic Review of Field Studies]. Bilthoven: RIVM (National Institute of Public Health and the Environment); 2003. Report 715120010.
94. Huang Z, de la Fuente-Fernandez R, Stroessl AJ. Etiology of Parkinson's disease. Can J Neurol Sci. 2003;30(suppl 1):S10–18.
95. Tan XH, Wang SM, Xue NQ, et al. Study on the risk factors and its interaction on Parkinson disease. Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi
96. Wilhelm K, Kovess V, Rios-Seidel C, et al. Work and mental health. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol
97. Prüss-Üstün A, Fewtrell LJ, Landrigan PLead exposure. In: Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks, vol 1. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
98. Steenland K, Burnett C, Lalich N, et al. Dying for work: the magnitude of US mortality from selected causes of death associated with occupation. Am J Ind Med
99. Olsen O, Kristensen TS. Impact of work environment on cardiovascular diseases in Denmark. J Epidemiol Community Health
100. Nurminen M, Karjalainen A. Epidemiologic estimate of the proportion of fatalities related to occupational factors in Finland. Scand J Work Environ Health
101. Kaur S, Cohen A, Dolor R, et al. The impact of environmental tobacco smoke on women's risk of dying from heart disease: a meta-analysis. J Womens Health (Larchmt
102. Etzel RA. How environmental exposures influence the development and exacerbation of asthma. Pediatrics
103. Tatum AJ, Shapiro GG. The effects of outdoor air pollution and tobacco smoke on asthma. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am
104. Koenig JQ. Air pollution and asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol
105. Maetzel A, Makela M, Hawker G, et al. Osteoarthritis of the hip and knee and mechanical occupational exposure—a systematic overview of the evidence. J Rheumatol
106. Lievense A, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Verhagen A, et al. Influence of work on the development of osteoarthritis of the hip: a systematic review. J Rheumatol
107. Khuder SA, Peshimam AZ, Agraharam S. Environmental risk factors for rheumatoid arthritis. Rev Environ Health
108. Kirkhorn S, Greenlee RT, Reeser JC. The epidemiology of agriculture-related osteoarthritis and its impact on occupational disability. WMJ
109. Rossignol M, Leclerc A, Hilliquin P, et al. Primary osteoarthritis and occupations: a national cross sectional survey of 10 412 symptomatic patients. Occup Environ Med
110. Olsson AR, Skogh T, Axelson O, et al. Occupations and exposures in the work environment as determinants for rheumatoid arthritis. Occup Environ Med
111. Yoshimura N, Nishioka S, Kinoshita H, et al. Risk factors for knee osteoarthritis in Japanese women: heavy weight, previous joint injuries, and occupational activities. J Rheumatol
112. Forjuoh SN, Li G. A review of successful transport and home injury interventions to guide developing countries. Soc Sci Med
113. Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet D, et al, eds. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
114. Racioppi F, Eriksson L, Tingvall C, et al. Preventing Road Traffic Injury: A Public Health Perspective for Europe. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2004.
115. Elvik R. Area-wide urban traffic calming schemes: a meta-analysis of safety effects. Accid Anal Prev
116. Bunn F, Collier T, Frost C, et al. Traffic calming for the prevention of road traffic injuries: systematic review and meta analysis. Inj Prev
117. Mohan D. The Road Ahead—Traffic Injuries and Fatalities in India. Delhi: Indian Institute of Technology; 2004.
118. Peek-Asa C, Zwerling C. Role of environmental interventions in injury control and prevention. Epidemiol Rev
119. McGuigan MA. Common culprits in childhood poisoning: epidemiology, treatment and parental advice for prevention. Paediatr Drugs
121. Cryer C. What works to prevent accidental injury amongst older people. Report to the Health Development Agency (HAD), London. Canterbury, UK: University of Kent, Centre for Health Services; 2001.
122. Gillespie LD, Gillespie WJ, Robertson MC, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in elderly people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;4:CD000340.
123. Millward L, Morgan A, Kelly M. Prevention and Reduction of Accidental Injury in Children and Older People. London: Health Development Agency; 2003.
124. WHO Regional Office for Europe. How Can Injuries in Children and Older People Be Prevented? Copenhagen: WHO HEN (Health Evidence Network); 2004. Available at: www.who.dk/Document/E84938.pdf
. Accessed April 12, 2005.
125. Celis A. Drowning in Jalisco: 1983–1989. Asfixia por inmersion en Jalisco: 1983–1989. Salud Publica Mex
126. Norris B, Wilson JR. Preventing drowning through design—the contribution of human factors. Inj Control Saf Promot
127. Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments. Volume 1: Coastal and Freshwaters. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2003.
128. Bertolote J. Guidelines for the Primary Prevention of Mental, Neurological and Psychosocial Disorders: Suicide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1993.
129. Bowles J. Suicide in Western Samoa: an example of a suicide prevention program in a developing country. In: Diekstra R, Gulbinat RW, De Leo D, et al, eds. Preventive Strategies on Suicide. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill; 1995.
130. Brent DA, Perper JA, Allman CJ, et al. The presence and accessibility of firearms in the homes of adolescent suicides. A case–control study. JAMA
131. Farmer R, Rohde J. Effects of availability and acceptability of lethal instruments on suicide mortality. Acta Psychiatr Scand
132. Leenaars A, Cantor C, Connolly J, et al. Controlling the environment to prevent suicide: international perspectives. Can J Psychiatry
133. Hemenway D, Miller M. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high-income countries. J Trauma
134. Slovak K. Gun violence and children: factors related to exposure and trauma. Health Soc Work
135. Welsh BC, Farrington DP. Surveillance for crime prevention in public space: results and policy choices in Britain and America. Criminology and Public Policy. 2004;3:497–526.
136. Dietrich KN, Ris MD, Succop PA, et al. Early exposure to lead and juvenile delinquency. Neurotoxicol Teratol
137. Needleman HL, McFarland C, Ness RB, et al. Bone lead levels in adjudicated delinquents. A case–control study. Neurotoxicol Teratol
138. Nevin R. How lead exposure relates to temporal changes in IQ, violent crime, and unwed pregnancy. Environ Res
139. Stretesky PB, Lynch MJ. The relationship between lead exposure and homicide. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med
140. Stretesky PB, Lynch MJ. The relationship between lead and crime. J Health Soc Behav
141. Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence. Report 282. Washington, DC: Transport Research Board; 2005.
142. Brownson RC, Baker EA, Housemann RA, et al. Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States. Am J Public Health
143. Brownson RC, Boehmer TK, Luke DA. Declining rates of physical activity in the United States: what are the contributors? Annu Rev Public Health
144. Craig CL, Brownson RC, Cragg SE, et al. Exploring the effect of the environment on physical activity: a study examining walking to work. Am J Prev Med
145. De Bourdeaudhuij I, Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Environmental correlates of physical activity in a sample of Belgian adults. Am J Health Promot
146. Eyler AA, Brownson RC, Bacak SJ, et al. The epidemiology of walking for physical activity in the United States. Med Sci Sports Exerc
147. Huston SL, Evenson KR, Bors P, et al. Neighbourhood environment, access to places for activity, and leisure-time physical activity in a diverse North Carolina population. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18:58–69.
148. Ewing R. Can the physical environment determine physical activity levels? Exerc Sports Sci Rev
149. Bull FC, Armstrong TP, Dixon TPhysical inactivity. In: Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al, eds. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
150. Mayor of London—Transport for London. Congestion Charging: Impacts Monitoring. Second Annual Report April 2004. London: Transport for London; 2004.
151. Odense Municipality [Odense Commune]. Evaluating Odense—Danmarks Nationale Cykleby [Danish, with English summary]. Odense: Odense Municipality; 2004.
152. Patz JA, Campbell-Lendrum D, Holloway T, et al. Impact of regional climate change on human health. Nature
153. McMichael AJ, Githeko A. Human health. In: McCathy JJ, Canziani OF, et al, eds. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001:451–485.
154. Corvalán C, Hales S, McMichael A. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being, Health Synthesis. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
155. Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP, et al. Global consequences of land use. Science
156. WHO, UNICEF. Meeting the MDG Drinking Water and Sanitation Target: A Mid-term Assessment of Progress.
Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.
157. Fuel for Life—Household Energy and Health
. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006.
© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.