Addressing equity in interventions to reduce air pollution in urban areas: a systematic review
- 1k Downloads
We did a systematic review to assess quantitative studies investigating the association between interventions aiming to reduce air pollution, health benefits and equity effects.
Three databases were searched for studies investigating the association between evaluated interventions aiming to reduce air pollution and heath-related benefits. We designed a two-stage selection process to judge how equity was assessed and we systematically determined if there was a heterogeneous effect of the intervention between subgroups or subareas.
Of 145 identified articles, 54 were reviewed in-depth with eight satisfying the inclusion criteria. This systematic review showed that interventions aiming to reduce air pollution in urban areas have a positive impact on air quality and on mortality rates, but the documented effect on equity is less straightforward.
Integration of equity in evidence-based public health is a great challenge nowadays. In this review we draw attention to the importance of considering equity in air pollution interventions. We also propose further methodological and theoretical challenges when assessing equity in interventions to reduce air pollution and we present opportunities to develop this research area.
KeywordsAir pollution Equity Evaluation
The authors would like to thank the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the “Fonds de recherche en santé Québec” for funding Astrid Brousselle’s Canada Research Chair in Evaluation and Health System Improvement (CRC-EASY). The CRC-EASY supported the execution of this research. The authors also wish to thank the Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Santé Publique for funding support. This article was submitted to the IJPH call for “Environment and Health Reviews” related to the conference “Environment and Health—Bridging South, North, East and West” in Basel, Switzerland 20–23 August 2013 (the joint conference of ISEE, ISES and ISIAQ 2013). All authors have no financial disclosures.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Cram F, Ashton T (2008) The health equity assessment toolGoogle Scholar
- Dubois N, Houle J, Lloyd S, Mercier C, Brousselle A, Rey L (2012) Practice-based evaluation as a response to address intervention complexity. Can J Progr Eval 26(3):105–113Google Scholar
- Minkler M, Wallerstein N, Wilson N (1997) Improving health through community organization and community building. Health Educ Behav 3:279–311Google Scholar
- Patton MQ (2011) Developmental evaluation: applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Potvin L, Bilodeau A, Gendron S (2008) Trois défis pour l’évaluation en promotion de la santé. Int Union Health Promot Educ 15(Supp 1):17–21Google Scholar
- Skocpol T (1991) Targeting within universalism: politically viable policies to combat poverty in the United States. Urban Underclass 411(411):437–459Google Scholar
- Trust N, Data TW (2008) Equality impact assessment. PolicyGoogle Scholar
- Welch V, Tugwell P, Petticrew M, de Montigny J, Ueffing E, Kristjansson B et al (2010) How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 8(12):MR000028Google Scholar
- WHO (1986a) Action intersectorielle en faveur de la santé. GenèveGoogle Scholar
- WHO (1986b) The Ottawa charter for Health Promotion. OttawaGoogle Scholar