Search

Rationale: Avoiding excess health damages attributable to climate change is a primary motivator for policy interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, the health benefits of climate mitigation, as included in the policy assessment process, have been estimated without much input from health experts. Objectives: In accordance with recommendations from the National Academies in a 2017 report on approaches to update the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG), an expert panel of 26 health researchers and climate economists gathered for a virtual technical workshop in May 2021 to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis and recommend improvements to the estimation of health impacts in economic-climate models. Methods: Regionally resolved effect estimates of unit increases in temperature on net all-cause mortality risk were generated through random-effects pooling of studies identified through a systematic review. Results: Effect estimates and associated uncertainties varied by global region, but net increases in mortality risk associated with increased average annual temperatures (ranging from 0.1% to 1.1% per 1°C) were estimated for all global regions. Key recommendations for the development and utilization of health damage modules were provided by the expert panel and included the following: not relying on individual methodologies in estimating health damages; incorporating a broader range of cause-specific mortality impacts; improving the climate parameters available in economic models; accounting for socioeconomic trajectories and adaptation factors when estimating health damages; and carefully considering how air pollution impacts should be incorporated in economic-climate models. Conclusions: This work provides an example of how subject-matter experts can work alongside climate economists in making continued improvements to SC-GHG estimates.

Objective: High-quality scientific evidence underpins public health decision making. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) agency provides scientific data, including during public health emergencies. To understand CDC's contributions to COVID-19 science, we conducted a bibliometric evaluation of publications authored by CDC scientists from January 20, 2020, through January 20, 2022, by using a quality improvement approach (SQUIRE 2.0). Methods: We catalogued COVID-19 articles with ≥1 CDC-affiliated author published in a scientific journal and indexed in the World Health Organization's COVID-19 database. We identified priority topic areas from the agency's COVID-19 Public Health Science Agenda by using keyword scripts in EndNote and then assessed the impact of the published articles by using Scopus and Altmetric. Results: During the first 2 years of the agency's pandemic response, CDC authors contributed to 1044 unique COVID-19 scientific publications in 208 journals. Publication topics included testing (n = 853, 82%); prevention strategies (n = 658, 63%); natural history, transmission, breakthrough infections, and reinfections (n = 587, 56%); vaccines (n = 567, 54%); health equity (n = 308, 30%); variants (n = 232, 22%); and post–COVID-19 conditions (n = 44, 4%). Publications were cited 40 427 times and received 81 921 news reports and 1 058 893 social media impressions. As the pandemic evolved, CDC adapted to address new scientific questions, including vaccine effectiveness, safety, and access; viral variants, including Delta and Omicron; and health equity. Conclusion: The agency's COVID-19 Public Health Science Agenda helped guide impactful scientific activities. CDC continues to evaluate COVID-19 priority topic areas and contribute to development of new scientific work. CDC is committed to monitoring emerging issues and addressing gaps in evidence needed to improve health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: After the Chernobyl accident in 1986, children of the contaminated Narodichesky region of Ukraine were obliged to participate in a yearly medical screening. They have been exposed to [.sup.137]cesium [...]

Abstract Background We evaluated the impact of migration to the USA-Mexico border city of El Paso, Texas (USA), parental language preference, and Hispanic ethnicity on childhood asthma to differentiate between its social and environmental determinants. Methods Allergy and asthma prevalence was surveyed among 9797 fourth and fifth grade children enrolled in the El Paso Independent School District. Parents completed a respiratory health questionnaire, in either English or Spanish, and a sub-sample of children received spirometry testing at their school. Here we report asthma and allergy outcomes across ethnicity and El Paso residency duration. Results Asthma and allergy prevalence increased with longer duration of El Paso residency independent of ethnicity and preferred language. Compared with immigrants who arrived in El Paso after entering first grade (18%), lifelong El Paso residents (68%) had more prevalent allergy (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.32 - 2.24), prevalent asthma (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.24 - 2.46), and current asthma (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.37 - 2.95). Spirometric measurements (FEV1/FVC and FEF25-75) also declined with increasing duration of El Paso residency (0.16% and 0.35% annual reduction, respectively). Conclusion These findings suggest that a community-wide environmental exposure in El Paso, delayed pulmonary development, or increased health of immigrants may be associated with allergy and asthma development in children raised there.