Toward an Integrated System of Climate Change and Human Health Indicators: A Conceptual Framework.

Environmental health indicators are helpful for tracking and communicating complex health trends, informing science and policy decisions, and evaluating public health actions. When provided on a national scale, they can help inform the general public, policy makers, and public health professionals about important trends in exposures and how well public health systems are preventing those exposures from causing adverse health outcomes. There is a growing need to understand national trends in exposures and health outcomes associated with climate change and the effectiveness of climate adaptation strategies for health. To date, most indicators for health implications of climate change have been designed as independent, individual metrics. This approach fails to take into account how exposure-outcome pathways for climate-attributable health outcomes involve multiple, interconnected components. We propose reframing climate change and health indicators as a linked system of indicators, which can be described as follows: upstream climate drivers affect environmental states, which then determine human exposures, which ultimately lead to health outcomes; these climate-related risks are modified by population vulnerabilities and adaptation strategies. We apply this new conceptual framework to three illustrative climate-sensitive health outcomes and associated exposure-outcome pathways: pollen allergies and asthma, West Nile Virus infection, and vibriosis.

Ancillary health effects of climate mitigation scenarios as drivers of policy uptake: a review of air quality, transportation and diet co-benefits modeling studies.

Background: Significant mitigation efforts beyond the Nationally Determined Commitments (NDCs) coming out of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement are required to avoid warming of 2°C above pre-industrial temperatures. Health co-benefits represent selected near term, positive consequences of climate policies that can offset mitigation costs in the short term before the beneficial impacts of those policies on the magnitude of climate change are evident. The diversity of approaches to modeling mitigation options and their health effects inhibits meta-analyses and syntheses of results useful in policy-making. Methods/Design: We evaluated the range of methods and choices in modeling health co-benefits of climate mitigation to identify opportunities for increased consistency and collaboration that could better inform policy-making. We reviewed studies quantifying the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation related to air quality, transportation, and diet published since the 2009 Lancet Commission 'Managing the health effects of climate change' through January 2017. We documented approaches, methods, scenarios, health-related exposures, and health outcomes. Results/Synthesis: Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Air quality, transportation, and diet scenarios ranged from specific policy proposals to hypothetical scenarios, and from global recommendations to stakeholder-informed local guidance. Geographic and temporal scope as well as validity of scenarios determined policy relevance. More recent studies tended to use more sophisticated methods to address complexity in the relevant policy system. Discussion: Most studies indicated significant, nearer term, local ancillary health benefits providing impetus for policy uptake and net cost savings. However, studies were more suited to describing the interaction of climate policy and health and the magnitude of potential outcomes than to providing specific accurate estimates of health co-benefits. Modeling the health co-benefits of climate policy provides policy-relevant information when the scenarios are reasonable, relevant, and thorough, and the model adequately addresses complexity. Greater consistency in selected modeling choices across the health co-benefits of climate mitigation research would facilitate evaluation of mitigation options particularly as they apply to the NDCs and promote policy uptake.

Estimating the health effects of greenhouse gas mitigation strategies: addressing parametric, model, and valuation challenges.

BACKGROUND: Policy decisions regarding climate change mitigation are increasingly incorporating the beneficial and adverse health impacts of greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies. Studies of such co-benefits and co-harms involve modeling approaches requiring a range of analytic decisions that affect the model output. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess analytic decisions regarding model framework, structure, choice of parameters, and handling of uncertainty when modeling health co-benefits, and to make recommendations for improvements that could increase policy uptake. METHODS: We describe the assumptions and analytic decisions underlying models of mitigation co-benefits, examining their effects on modeling outputs, and consider tools for quantifying uncertainty. DISCUSSION: There is considerable variation in approaches to valuation metrics, discounting methods, uncertainty characterization and propagation, and assessment of low-probability/high-impact events. There is also variable inclusion of adverse impacts of mitigation policies, and limited extension of modeling domains to include implementation considerations. Going forward, co-benefits modeling efforts should be carried out in collaboration with policy makers; these efforts should include the full range of positive and negative impacts and critical uncertainties, as well as a range of discount rates, and should explicitly characterize uncertainty. We make recommendations to improve the rigor and consistency of modeling of health co-benefits. CONCLUSION: Modeling health co-benefits requires systematic consideration of the suitability of model assumptions, of what should be included and excluded from the model framework, and how uncertainty should be treated. Increased attention to these and other analytic decisions has the potential to increase the policy relevance and application of co-benefits modeling studies, potentially helping policy makers to maximize mitigation potential while simultaneously improving health.

Health and household air pollution from solid fuel use: the need for improved exposure assessment.

BACKGROUND: Nearly 3 billion people worldwide rely on solid fuel combustion to meet basic household energy needs. The resulting exposure to air pollution causes an estimated 4.5% of the global burden of disease. Large variability and a lack of resources for research and development have resulted in highly uncertain exposure estimates. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify research priorities for exposure assessment that will more accurately and precisely define exposure-response relationships of household air pollution necessary to inform future cleaner-burning cookstove dissemination programs. DATA SOURCES: As part of an international workshop in May 2011, an expert group characterized the state of the science and developed recommendations for exposure assessment of household air pollution. SYNTHESIS: The following priority research areas were identified to explain variability and reduce uncertainty of household air pollution exposure measurements: improved characterization of spatial and temporal variability for studies examining both short- and long-term health effects; development and validation of measurement technology and approaches to conduct complex exposure assessments in resource-limited settings with a large range of pollutant concentrations; and development and validation of biomarkers for estimating dose. Addressing these priority research areas, which will inherently require an increased allocation of resources for cookstove research, will lead to better characterization of exposure-response relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Although the type and extent of exposure assessment will necessarily depend on the goal and design of the cookstove study, without improved understanding of exposure-response relationships, the level of air pollution reduction necessary to meet the health targets of cookstove interventions will remain uncertain.

Climate change, human health, and biomedical research: analysis of the National Institutes of Health research portfolio.

BACKGROUND: According to a wide variety of analyses and projections, the potential effects of global climate change on human health are large and diverse. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), through its basic, clinical, and population research portfolio of grants, has been increasing efforts to understand how the complex interrelationships among humans, ecosystems, climate, climate variability, and climate change affect domestic and global health. OBJECTIVES: In this commentary we present a systematic review and categorization of the fiscal year (FY) 2008 NIH climate and health research portfolio. METHODS: A list of candidate climate and health projects funded from FY 2008 budget appropriations were identified and characterized based on their relevance to climate change and health and based on climate pathway, health impact, study type, and objective. RESULTS: This analysis identified seven FY 2008 projects focused on climate change, 85 climate-related projects, and 706 projects that focused on disease areas associated with climate change but did not study those associations. Of the nearly 53,000 awards that NIH made in 2008, approximately 0.17% focused on or were related to climate. CONCLUSIONS: Given the nature and scale of the potential effects of climate change on human health and the degree of uncertainty that we have about these effects, we think that it is helpful for the NIH to engage in open discussions with science and policy communities about government-wide needs and opportunities in climate and health, and about how NIH's strengths in human health research can contribute to understanding the health implications of global climate change. This internal review has been used to inform more recent initiatives by the NIH in climate and health.

The influence of global climate change on the scientific foundations and applications of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry: introduction to a SETAC international workshop.

This is the first of seven papers resulting from a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) international workshop titled "The Influence of Global Climate Change on the Scientific Foundations and Applications of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry." The workshop involved 36 scientists from 11 countries and was designed to answer the following question: How will global climate change influence the environmental impacts of chemicals and other stressors and the way we assess and manage them in the environment? While more detail is found in the complete series of articles, some key consensus points are as follows: (1) human actions (including mitigation of and adaptation to impacts of global climate change [GCC]) may have as much influence on the fate and distribution of chemical contaminants as does GCC, and modeled predictions should be interpreted cautiously; (2) climate change can affect the toxicity of chemicals, but chemicals can also affect how organisms acclimate to climate change; (3) effects of GCC may be slow, variable, and difficult to detect, though some populations and communities of high vulnerability may exhibit responses sooner and more dramatically than others; (4) future approaches to human and ecological risk assessments will need to incorporate multiple stressors and cumulative risks considering the wide spectrum of potential impacts stemming from GCC; and (5) baseline/reference conditions for estimating resource injury and restoration/rehabilitation will continually shift due to GCC and represent significant challenges to practitioners.

Implications of global climate change for the assessment and management of human health risks of chemicals in the natural environment.

Global climate change (GCC) is likely to alter the degree of human exposure to pollutants and the response of human populations to these exposures, meaning that risks of pollutants could change in the future. The present study, therefore, explores how GCC might affect the different steps in the pathway from a chemical source in the environment through to impacts on human health and evaluates the implications for existing risk-assessment and management practices. In certain parts of the world, GCC is predicted to increase the level of exposure of many environmental pollutants due to direct and indirect effects on the use patterns and transport and fate of chemicals. Changes in human behavior will also affect how humans come into contact with contaminated air, water, and food. Dietary changes, psychosocial stress, and coexposure to stressors such as high temperatures are likely to increase the vulnerability of humans to chemicals. These changes are likely to have significant implications for current practices for chemical assessment. Assumptions used in current exposure-assessment models may no longer apply, and existing monitoring methods may not be robust enough to detect adverse episodic changes in exposures. Organizations responsible for the assessment and management of health risks of chemicals therefore need to be more proactive and consider the implications of GCC for their procedures and processes.

Identifying vulnerable subpopulations for climate change health effects in the United States.

Climate change can be expected to have differential effects on different subpopulations. Biological sensitivity, socioeconomic factors, and geography may each contribute to heightened risk for climate-sensitive health outcomes, which include heat stress, air pollution health effects, extreme weather event health effects, water-, food-, and vector-borne illnesses. Particularly vulnerable subpopulations include children, pregnant women, older adults, impoverished populations, people with chronic conditions and mobility and cognitive constraints, outdoor workers, and those in coastal and low-lying riverine zones. For public health planning, it is critical to identify populations that may experience synergistic effects of multiple risk factors for health problems, both related to climate change and to other temporal trends, with specific geographic factors that convey climate-related risks.

Meeting report: hazard assessment for nanoparticles--report from an interdisciplinary workshop.

In this report we present the findings from a nanotoxicology workshop held 6-7 April 2006 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. Over 2 days, 26 scientists from government, academia, industry, and nonprofit organizations addressed two specific questions: what information is needed to understand the human health impact of engineered nanoparticles and how is this information best obtained? To assess hazards of nanoparticles in the near-term, most participants noted the need to use existing in vivo toxicologic tests because of their greater familiarity and interpretability. For all types of toxicology tests, the best measures of nanoparticle dose need to be determined. Most participants agreed that a standard set of nanoparticles should be validated by laboratories worldwide and made available for benchmarking tests of other newly created nanoparticles. The group concluded that a battery of tests should be developed to uncover particularly hazardous properties. Given the large number of diverse materials, most participants favored a tiered approach. Over the long term, research aimed at developing a mechanistic understanding of the numerous characteristics that influence nanoparticle toxicity was deemed essential. Predicting the potential toxicity of emerging nanoparticles will require hypothesis-driven research that elucidates how physicochemical parameters influence toxic effects on biological systems. Research needs should be determined in the context of the current availability of testing methods for nanoscale particles. Finally, the group identified general policy and strategic opportunities to accelerate the development and implementation of testing protocols and ensure that the information generated is translated effectively for all stakeholders.

Getting it right the first time: developing nanotechnology while protecting workers, public health, and the environment.

Nanotechnology, the design and manipulation of materials at the atomic scale, may well revolutionize many of the ways our society manufactures products, produces energy, and treats diseases. Innovative nanotechnology products are already reaching the market in a wide variety of consumer products. Some of the observed properties of nanomaterials call into question the adequacy of current methods for determining hazard and exposure, and for controlling resulting risks. Given the limitations of existing regulatory tools and policies, two distinct kinds of initiatives are urgently needed: first, a major increase in the federal investment nanomaterial risk research, and second, rapid development and implementation of voluntary standards of care pending development of adequate regulatory safeguards. The U.S. government should increase federal funding for nanomaterial risk research under the National Nanotechnology Initiative to at least $100 million annually for the next several years. Several voluntary programs are currently at various stages of evolution, though the eventual outputs of each of these are still far from clear. Ultimately, effective regulatory safeguards, harmonized globally, are necessary to provide a level playing field for industry while adequately protecting human health and the environment.

Educational needs assessment for pediatric health care providers on pesticide toxicity.

PURPOSE: This pilot project, carried out under the National Strategies for Health Care Providers: Pesticides Initiative, assessed the attitudes, beliefs and practices of pediatricians, nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, and nurses in the metropolitan Washington, D.C., area and the surrounding rural counties regarding health effects of pesticide toxicity and continuing education on pesticide toxicity in the years 2001-2002. METHODS: Data were collected from practitioners (physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners) and nurses using questionnaires as well as from practitioners using focus groups. Sites for questionnaire distribution and focus groups were selected to represent a variety of practice types and geographic settings. One-hundred-sixty questionnaires from practitioners and 43 from nurses were analyzed. These issues were probed further in six focus groups with 29 participants. RESULTS: Most respondents in both groups did not frequently diagnose or ask questions about pesticide toxicity on patient histories. Most focus group participants were more comfortable answering questions about acute pesticide toxicity, and many relied on poison control centers for assistance with management of acute cases. They expressed less understanding and more uncertainties about chronic toxicity. When asked questions by patients, 64% of practitioners and 69% of nurses felt poorly prepared to answer them. Forty percent of practitioners but only 26% of nurses felt it was important to obtain more information on pesticides. There were divergent preferences on ways to obtain continuing medical education (CME) in general, but a recurrent theme was the need to make CME on pesticide toxicity clinically relevant and one topic among several in a CME conference. Lectures and short courses were the most commonly preferred modes of education among both practitioners and nurses. CONCLUSION: Educational materials to reach this population of pediatric clinicians on pesticides, as well as other environmental health topics, should make the case justifying the importance of the topics, highlight information of clinical relevance, and use a variety of media. These results should be confirmed before being generalized to a broader group of clinicians, although the consistency of findings between focus groups suggests they are robust, at least for this geographic area.