Intervention Protocol

You have free access to this content

Interventions to reduce ambient particulate matter air pollution and their effect on health

  1. Jacob Burns1,
  2. Hanna Boogaard2,
  3. Ruth Turley3,
  4. Lisa M Pfadenhauer1,
  5. Annemoon M van Erp2,
  6. Anke C Rohwer4,
  7. Eva Rehfuess1,*

Editorial Group: Cochrane Public Health Group

Published Online: 15 JAN 2014

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010919


How to Cite

Burns J, Boogaard H, Turley R, Pfadenhauer LM, van Erp AM, Rohwer AC, Rehfuess E. Interventions to reduce ambient particulate matter air pollution and their effect on health (Protocol). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD010919. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010919.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Munich, Bavaria, Germany

  2. 2

    Health Effects Institute, Boston, MA, USA

  3. 3

    Information Services, Cardiff University, Support Unit for Research Evidence (SURE), Cardiff, Wales, UK

  4. 4

    Stellenbosch University, Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa

*Eva Rehfuess, Institute for Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Marchioninistr. 15, Munich, Bavaria, Germany. rehfuess@ibe.med.uni-muenchen.de.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: New
  2. Published Online: 15 JAN 2014

SEARCH

 

Background

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
 

Description of the condition

Ambient air pollution is a complex mixture of gaseous and particulate pollutants, varying spatially and temporally with regard to concentration, source, composition, atmospheric lifetime and myriad other physical and chemical properties (WHO 2006). Ambient particulate matter (PM) air pollution, the indicator pollutant used most broadly for monitoring and health research, is a heterogeneous mixture of solid and liquid particles of various particle size, shape, chemical composition and source, suspended in the air (Chow 1995). It is made up of primary particles which are emitted directly into the atmosphere, and secondary particles which are formed through chemical transformations and reactions of PM with gases (WHO 2006). It is composed of various substances, some of the more common constituents including nitrates, sulphates, elemental and organic carbon, organic compounds, biological compounds and a variety of metals (Brook 2004).

Many anthropogenic sources of ambient PM exist, including motor vehicle emissions, tire fragmentation and resuspension of road dust, power generation and other industrial combustion, smelting and other metal processing, agriculture, construction and demolition activities, and residential burning. Natural sources include windblown soil, pollens and moulds, forest fires and combustion of agricultural debris, volcanic emissions and sea spray (Brook 2004).

Exposure to ambient PM air pollution is associated with numerous health outcomes in adults, including premature deaths from all causes, and cardiovascular and respiratory causes (Pope 2006; Stieb 2002). According to the recently published findings of the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study, PM air pollution is responsible for 3.2 million premature deaths globally (95% confidence interval 2.8 to 3.6 million), making it the second biggest environmental and the ninth most important overall risk factor (Lim 2012). In addition to mortality, ambient PM air pollution has been associated with respiratory morbidity, including asthma attacks, pneumonia, decreased lung function and hospital admissions due to respiratory events, as well as with cardiovascular morbidity, including heart attack and hospital admissions due to cardiovascular events (Pope 2006; Rückerl 2011). Adverse health effects of PM air pollution have been observed in vulnerable groups including children and the elderly, as well as in healthy populations.

The actual PM exposure and dose that a human receives is dependent on the time spent in different microenvironments. PM levels often vary temporally and spatially, and as humans traverse different microenvironments throughout the day, they experience a range of exposure levels and compositions, thus complicating exposure measurement and the association between PM and health responses (Kousa 2002; WHO 2006).

Upon inhalation, the particle size determines how deep in the lung the particle is able to penetrate and deposit (Chow 1995). Particulate matter is often measured as PM10 (PM with a diameter < 10 µm), which can be subdivided into coarse particles (PM10-2.5 with a diameter of 2.5 µm to 10 µm), fine particles (PM2.5 with a diameter of < 2.5 µm) and ultrafine particles (PM0.1 with a diameter of < 0.1 µm). Typically, these PM indicators are mass-based, apart from ultrafine particles which are often characterised by particle number (Chow 1995; Pope 2006). It is generally accepted that particles greater than 10 µm in diameter are filtered by the upper respiratory airways and do not reach the lower airways. Particles less than 10 µm in diameter penetrate the lungs upon inhalation and can therefore adversely affect human health. Fine particles, however, are thought to play a relatively larger role in affecting human health, as their smaller size allows for deeper penetration into the lungs. In addition, fine PM is suspended in the ambient air for longer periods of time and is thus transported over much greater distances (Pope 2006). Interest in ultrafine particles has increased recently, because their small diameter allows for translocation from the respiratory system into the blood and other parts of the body (Oberdörster 2005). Some concern exists about ultrafine PM being able to translocate through the olfactory nerve directly into the brain (Elder 2006).

Most studies focus on PM10 and PM2.5 because those size classes are the focus of regulations and are commonly measured to ensure compliance with emissions and air quality standards. While PM2.5 is now commonly measured in industrialised countries, PM2.5 monitoring stations located in developing countries remain sparse and research conducted in these settings still tends to rely on PM10 measurements. The contribution of individual PM components to health effects has also been of interest to researchers. Though relatively few data are available and the evidence on the matter is not completely consistent, in part due to lack of detailed monitoring for components (Stanek 2011), several components, in particular those stemming from combustion sources (WHO 2007), have been shown to be associated with human health effects (Bell 2010; Heal 2012; Lippmann 2006; Lippmann 2013; Ostro 2010; Valdes 2012; Vedal 2013).

Several biologically plausible mechanisms have been proposed which could lead to human health effects, including specific pathways within the lungs (van Eeden 2005), heart (Pope 2006), blood (DeMeo 2004; Gong 2004; Nemmar 2002), vasculature (Brook 2002) and brain (Elder 2006). Some evidence for each of these pathways exists, but it is generally thought that multiple pathways with complex interactions and interdependencies jointly influence the various health outcomes (Pope 2006). The schematic in Figure 1, from Pope and Dockery (Pope 2006), illustrates this complexity, with several potential pathways linking PM exposure to cardiopulmonary morbidity and mortality.

 FigureFigure 1. Possible pathways linking ambient PM and cardiopulmonary health outcomes (Pope 2006).

Based on all the evidence available, the World Health Organization (WHO) developed air quality guidelines to reduce the health effects of air pollution. The guidelines are not legally binding, but are a source of globally applicable guidance for policy makers preparing national strategies as well as a valuable resource to researchers. For ambient PM, the most recent revision of the air quality guidelines in 2005 defined an annual guideline of 10 µg/m3 for PM2.5 and of 20 µg/m3 for PM10, but it should be noted that some health effects have been observed even at sub-guideline concentrations (REVIHAAP 2013; WHO 2006). It also defined three interim targets, allowing countries to gauge progress over time in the difficult process of reducing population exposures to PM. These guidelines are summarised in Table 1, and provide a means of comparing the PM impact of specific interventions with internationally agreed targets (WHO 2006).


Annual mean levelPM10 (µg/m3)PM2.5 (µg/m3)Basis for selected level

WHO interim target 1

(IT-1)
7035These levels are estimated to be associated with about 15% higher long-term mortality than at AQG levels

WHO interim target 2

(IT-2)
5025In addition to other health benefits, these levels lower the risk of premature mortality by approximately 6% (2% to 11%) compared to IT-1 levels

WHO interim target 3

(IT-3)
3015In addition to other health benefits, these levels reduce mortality risk by approximately another 6% (2% to 11%) compared to IT-2 levels

WHO air quality guidelines (AQG)2010These are the lowest levels at which total, cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality have been shown to increase with more than 95% confidence in response to PM2.5 in the ACS study, which included data from 151 US metropolitan areas in 1980 (Pope 1995). The use of the PM2.5 guideline is preferred.



Table 1: WHO air quality guideline and interim targets for PM: annual mean (WHO 2006).

Ambient PM is a truly global problem, with both urban and rural populations in developing and developed countries adversely affected. Asian, African and Latin American cities, however, experience much higher PM10 levels than North American and European cities, with annual mean values of 35 to 220 μg/m3, 40 to 150 μg/m3 and 30 to 129 μg/m3, compared to 20 to 60 μg/m3 and 15 to 70 μg/m3 respectively, meaning that the global burden of PM air pollution is not equally shared (Lim 2012; WHO 2006). As urbanisation continues in the developing world, related issues such as industrial growth and growing vehicle fleets are expected to contribute to increasing air pollution levels (WHO 2006), thus exacerbating the health burden.

A growing body of evidence also emphasises that disparities exist not only between national borders, but also within borders or even within cities. Evidence has shown that inequalities in exposure to PM exist, with disadvantaged populations more likely to live in polluted areas (Bell 2012; Miranda 2011; Pastor 2005). These populations often have a lower baseline health status and may have less access to health care, which, in conjunction with the higher exposure, has been shown to yield an amplified health response (Finkelstein 2003; Gwynn 2001; Jerrett 2004; Martins 2004; Phelan 2004).

 

Description of the intervention

Different interventions are available to reduce exposure to ambient PM air pollution. Interventions range from national or regional regulations to very specific local actions that may involve either single or multiple governmental sectors (van Erp 2012). They range from those that take effect over a long period of time to those with very short-term goals, and may be temporary or permanent. While most ambient PM interventions seek to comply with air quality standards, goals may vary and could include, for example, to reduce emissions, to reduce contamination of water bodies, to improve visibility or even to improve health directly. Also a reduction in ambient PM concentration could occur as a side effect of an intervention with different goals, for example, an intervention to reduce congestion and improve traffic flow. For the purposes of this review, ambient PM air pollution interventions will be categorised with regard to the target source of pollution directly or indirectly affected by the intervention, including:

  • vehicular sources – e.g. low emission zones in Europe; diesel and other regulations to clean up emissions in US and California, London congestion charging scheme; 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games;
  • industrial sources – e.g. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to reduce SOx and NOx emission from power-generating facilities;
  • residential sources – e.g. residential wood-burning regulations in San Joaquin Valley, California; coal sale ban in Dublin, Ireland; improved cookstoves in Guatemala;
  • multiple sources – e.g. European air emission policies, such as the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NEC); 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.

 

How the intervention might work

Air quality interventions may comprise multiple components, are often carried out over an extended period of time and may involve multiple governmental sectors including environment, transport, energy and health. Also, such interventions may not lead to immediate changes in human exposure or health outcomes. This complexity, as well as multiple, interacting environmental and biological pathways leading to a health response, greatly complicate the assessment of these effects (HEI 2003).

The US National Research Council's Committee on Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter set out a conceptual framework for linking air pollution sources to adverse health effects (NRC 2002). This framework has been adapted by the Health Effects Institute, as shown in Figure 2, to identify factors along an 'outcomes evaluation cycle', with each stage affording its own opportunities to evaluate how interventions affect emissions, ambient air quality, human exposures and doses, and ultimately health effects (HEI 2003). Each stage provides a checkpoint at which one can assess whether an intervention has been effective; studies may include evaluations of one or several of the stages. This 'cycle' is often used in studies investigating the health effects of interventions.

 FigureFigure 2. Outcomes Evaluation Cycle: Each box represents a link between regulatory action and human health response to air pollution. Arrows connecting the links indicate possible directions of influence. Text below the arrows identifies general indices of accountability at that stage. At several stages, knowledge gained from accountability assessment can provide valuable feedback for improving regulatory or other action. (Reproduced with permission from HEI 2003.)

Drawing on this framework and based on methodological work undertaken as part of the EU-funded INTEGRATE-HTA project (Anke Rohwer, personal communication), we have developed the system-based logic model in Figure 3. This is intended to help understand the relationship between various PM air pollution interventions and ambient air quality and human health outcomes in their broader societal and environmental context, as well as to structure and guide the review process.

 FigureFigure 3. System-based logic model showing multiple components for the system containing ambient PM interventions and their possible effects on air quality and human health.

System components are organised within boxes including Population, Intervention design, Intervention delivery, Theory, Outcomes and Context. These boxes are then populated with specific information which could influence the effectiveness of ambient PM interventions.

 

Why it is important to do this review

As described above, PM air pollution is of immense significance for global health and responsible for a very large mortality and morbidity burden (Lim 2012). In addition, ambient PM air pollution disproportionately affects urban and rural populations in developing countries, and shows stark inequalities in exposure and health effects for disadvantaged groups within industrialised and developing countries. Globally, substantial resources are devoted to interventions aimed at decreasing PM concentrations and improving the associated human health effects. In the United States alone, for example, the costs of public and private efforts to meet the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment requirements are estimated at USD 65 billion annually (EPA 2011).

In a recent surge of interest in accountability research, several authors have published summaries that sought to address whether interventions to reduce ambient concentrations of pollutants are effective in improving the associated human health outcomes (Bell 2011; Henschel 2012; van Erp 2012). They concluded that accountability studies are invaluable with regard to assessing specific interventions, and highlighted many of the interventions likely to be included in this review. We seek to build upon and extend on these and other efforts, and aim to systematically review the literature for and synthesise the best available evidence of interventions to reduce ambient PM air pollution and their effects on human health. To the best of our knowledge, despite the scale of the health burden and the amount of resources devoted to PM reductions, no systematic review of interventions has been performed to date, and the extent to which different approaches for decreasing ambient PM levels have been effective in improving human health remains uncertain.

 

Objectives

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest

The review objective is to assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce ambient PM air pollution concentrations, and their effects on health outcomes.

 

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
 

Criteria for considering studies for this review

 

Types of studies

The ecological nature of interventions and continuous PM monitoring at sites makes non-randomised studies, such as interrupted time series, very common in the field of ambient air pollution research and policy making. Due to the complexity and range of ambient air pollution interventions, and the importance of non-randomised evidence within the field, we will consider both randomised and non-randomised studies for this review. As there is considerable debate within the methodological literature about the relevance (or not) of including non-randomised evidence in systematic reviews of complex interventions, this review will also explore the added value of including RCTs only versus RCTs plus Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group-recognised study designs versus RCTs plus EPOC-recognised study designs plus other study designs. The following study designs will therefore be eligible for inclusion:

  • Individually randomised trials
  • Cluster-randomised trials
  • Controlled before-and-after studies adhering to EPOC standards (CBA-EPOC) – with at least two intervention sites and two control sites (EPOC 2013)
  • Interrupted time series studies adhering to EPOC standards (ITS-EPOC) – with at least three data points before and after a clearly defined intervention (in terms of content and timing) (EPOC 2013)
  • Controlled before-and-after studies not adhering to EPOC standards (CBA) – with fewer than two intervention and/or control sites
  • Uncontrolled before-and-after studies (UBA)
  • Interrupted time series studies not adhering to EPOC standards (ITS) – with fewer than three data points before and after a clearly defined intervention (in terms of content and timing)
  • Repeated cross-sectional studies (CSS) – with a clearly defined intervention (in terms of content and timing) and data collected at least once before and once after the intervention

As effects on ambient air and health may be observed after very short (days) as well as long (months or years) time periods, studies of both short and long duration will be included.

As we expect inconsistencies in naming among studies, we will be very careful not to exclude studies solely based on study design labels. For example, a cohort study, which is linked to a clearly described intervention and where effect data are collected both pre- and post-intervention, is an uncontrolled before-and-after study according to our definition and would be included.

 

Types of participants

Interventions to reduce ambient PM air pollution are usually intended for the general population and are of global relevance. As discussed above, concentrations at which ambient PM air pollution has been shown to affect human health are experienced by both children and adults in urban and rural settings in both developed and developing countries (Dadvand 2013; Lim 2012; WHO 2006). For this reason, we will make no exclusions with regard to age group or other participant or setting characteristics.

 

Types of interventions

We will categorise interventions with regard to the target PM source:

  • Vehicular sources: those interventions aimed at reducing ambient PM originating from vehicular sources such as automobiles or public transportation, or interventions aimed at reducing traffic and congestion but resulting in changes in ambient PM concentrations
  • Industrial sources: those interventions aimed at reducing ambient PM stemming from industrial and power-generating sources
  • Residential sources: those interventions aimed at reducing ambient PM stemming from residential heating and cooking, or those aimed at reducing indoor PM but resulting in changes in ambient PM concentrations
  • Multiple sources: those interventions aimed at reducing ambient PM originating from multiple sources, which could include any of the above-listed sources

Each of these interventions may comprise multiple components, including technological or infrastructural, educational, policy and regulatory, and execution may be intervention- and component-dependent (see Figure 3).

The comparison will be no intervention.

 

Types of outcome measures

Effects of interventions can be assessed at different stages as illustrated in Figure 2. For this review, studies which measured at least one of the following ambient air quality or human health primary or secondary outcomes will be eligible for inclusion.

 

Primary outcomes

 
Ambient air quality

There are many components of ambient air pollution, such as PM, carbon monoxide (CO), sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and ozone (O3), for which decreases in ambient concentration should theoretically be associated with improved human health (NRC 2002; WHO 2006). PM is the indicator pollutant used most broadly for monitoring, guidelines and standards, and has been shown to be associated with numerous health outcomes, and will therefore be the primary population-level outcome used to assess ambient air quality for this review.

  • Outdoor PM concentrations measured over 24 hours or multiples of 24 hours (e.g. 48-hour measurements, weekly, monthly or annual averages)

For the above PM outcomes, studies will be eligible for inclusion if PM is measured on a per mass basis with particles smaller than PM10. Since the exact cut-off point will be different across studies, we will consider studies that measured PM10, coarse PM and PM2.5. In addition, since it is thought that combustion-related PM is more harmful to health than PM generated from other sources, we will also consider studies that focused on combustion-related indicators of PM or soot, including black carbon, black smoke, elemental carbon and absorption of PM. Soot has been recommended as an additional indicator to evaluate the health risks of PM and traffic abatement measures (Janssen 2011).

A sampling duration of less than 24 ± 2 hours will be excluded, as this cannot be considered representative of daily concentrations. As the focus of this review is on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce ambient PM concentrations, those studies measuring only indoor air pollution will not be included. While biomarker studies as proxies of dose are becoming more common, uncertainties still remain with respect to their reliability, and we are not aware of any intervention studies that have used these.

 
Human health response

Health responses associated with ambient air pollution, and PM in particular, include cardiovascular, respiratory and all-cause mortality, as well as acute cardiovascular and respiratory events. As ambient PM is responsible for 3.2 million annual premature deaths globally (Lim 2012), the primary human health outcomes in this review will be the following:

  • Cardiovascular mortality
  • Respiratory mortality
  • All-cause mortality

Also, as mortality will likely be routinely collected at the population level, assessments of mortality are less prone to bias than assessments of morbidity-related outcomes.

 

Secondary outcomes

In addition, this review will also assess the following secondary outcomes, where available:

 
Ambient air quality and personal exposure

  • CO concentrations
  • SO2 concentrations
  • NOx concentrations
  • O3 concentrations
  • Ultrafine particles (measured in particle number concentration)
  • Personal PM exposure

For all ambient air quality (population level) and personal exposure (individual level) secondary outcomes, as for air quality primary outcomes, 24-hour concentrations and multiples of 24-hour measurements will be included.

 
Human health response

  • Respiratory effects
    • Lung function
    • Respiratory events
    • Hospital admissions due to respiratory events
  • Cardiovascular effects
    • Cardiovascular events
    • Hospital admissions due to cardiovascular events

In addition to their relevance to health and quality of life, we chose these endpoints since they are often studied in relation to ambient PM pollution (Rückerl 2011). We will assess lung function using volume measures including forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) or forced vital capacity (FVC), and flow measures including peak expiratory flow (PEF) and maximal (mid-)expiratory flow (MMEF). Respiratory events will be defined as serious respiratory symptoms, asthma attacks, wheezing or lower respiratory tract infections (LRI). Cardiovascular events will primarily be concerned with heart attack and stroke. These morbidity measures will likely be available as routinely collected data, although some, e.g. lung function, cardiovascular and respiratory events, may be measured at the individual level.

 

Unintended outcomes

As PM interventions may also generate unintended effects of relevance to policy makers, we will attempt to document these where reported in primary studies. Some examples include:

  • Reduction in physical activity
  • Loss of employment
  • Economic losses
  • Safety

 

Search methods for identification of studies

We will perform searches within the following electronic databases.

  • Health/biomedical
    • CENTRAL (current issue, 2014)
    • Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register
    • MEDLINE (1947 to date)
    • MEDLINE (in process)
    • EMBASE (1947 to date)
    • PsycINFO (1806 to date)
  • Multidisciplinary
    • Scopus (1960 to date)
    • Science Citation Index (1960 to date)
  • Social sciences
    • Social Science Citation Index (1956 to date)
  • Urban planning/environment
    • Greenfile
  • Lower/middle-income country-relevant
    • Global Health Library sources:
      • Regional Indexes: AIM (AFRO), LILACS (AMRO/PAHO), IMEMR (EMRO), IMSEAR (SEARO), WPRIM (WPRO)
      • WHOLIS (WHO Library)
  • Grey literature/unpublished research/in press
    • HMIC (1979 to date)
    • WHO ICTRP (inception to date)
    • ClinicalTrials.gov (inception to date)
    • IDEAS (inception to date)
    • JOLIS (inception to date)
    • 3ie impact database (inception to date)
    • PubMed (all-topic search for e-publications ahead of print in title and abstract)

The MEDLINE search strategy is shown in Appendix 1 and will be adapted to the above listed databases. To ensure that the appropriate studies are identified, this search strategy is designed to capture studies relevant with regard to 1) the problem (ambient PM air pollution), 2) ambient air quality and health outcomes (ambient pollutant concentrations, mortality, cardiovascular and respiratory events), 3) intervention (those interventions expected to reduce ambient PM concentrations from vehicular, industrial or residential sources) and 4) study design (this search filter returns those study designs used in epidemiological research, i.e. no toxicological, pharmaceutical or animal studies).

In addition to the above listed database searches, we will handsearch all references of included studies, and the tables of contents of Environmental Health Perspectives andAtmospheric Environment for the 12 months preceding the last search date. To further ensure that relevant published data not captured through the search and unpublished data will be identified, we will contact the review advisory group (RAG), described in detail below, to suggest relevant published and unpublished literature.

Searches will be conducted in English but we will endeavour not to exclude any studies on the basis of language, with the team being able to assess papers published in English, Dutch, German, French, Italian and Afrikaans. For papers not published in English, we will explore options for translation and assessment for inclusion. All search results will be stored in EndNote.

 

Data collection and analysis

 

Selection of studies

Following removal of duplicate studies, we will perform a multi-stage screening process. In the first stage, Jacob Burns (JB) will screen all titles, removing those which are clearly not relevant with regard to population, intervention, outcomes or study design. In the second stage, JB, Eva Rehfuess (ER) and Lisa Pfadenhauer (LP) will independently screen 100 randomly selected abstracts and discuss any disagreements to ensure a standardised screening process. One review author, JB, ER or LP, will then assess all abstracts, excluding only those which are clearly not relevant with regard to population, intervention, outcomes or study design. During these initial stages, we will take an inclusive approach to screening, with all titles and abstracts where relevance is questionable kept for the next stage of independent screening by two review authors. In the third stage, two review authors, JB, ER or LP, will independently screen all remaining abstracts. Certain details regarding study design and features are often not as well reported in non-randomised studies when compared with RCTs (Higgins 2012). If certain key criteria for inclusion cannot be ascertained from the abstract, the study will be kept for full-text screening. Disagreements between review authors will be resolved through discussion, and a third review author will be consulted where necessary.

Subsequently, in the final stage, two review authors, JB, ER, LP or Anke Rohwer (AR), will examine the full text of all potentially relevant studies, assessing each against a checklist of inclusion criteria, evaluating whether the study matches the target study design, population, intervention, comparison and outcome of the review. Sections one to three of the review data extraction form, a standardised form adapted from the Cochrane Public Health Group's Data Extraction and Assessment Template (see Appendix 2) comprise the checklist for inclusion. Disagreements between the two review authors will be resolved through discussion, and a third review author will be consulted where necessary. Review authors will document the reasons for exclusion at each stage of screening. We will perform screening using Endnote.

 

Data extraction and management

JB and one of the other review authors will extract data for sections four to seven of the data extraction form independently. Inconsistencies or disagreements between the two review authors will be resolved through discussion, and ER will be consulted where necessary. For sections eight and nine of the data extraction form, which consists of the detailed documentation of intervention and context, a single review author (JB, LP, AR or ER) will extract data.

The final agreed data extraction will be entered into RevMan 5.2 (RevMan 2012) by JB, and checked by a second review author (one of ER, LP or AR).

As considerable differences in intervention type are expected, we will focus on extracting all relevant data to describe the intervention thoroughly. We will document data regarding intervention duration, intensity, goal and level of implementation (e.g. local, regional, national, international), as well as other intervention characteristics, including economic and process measures. We will document information and effect estimates for all primary and secondary outcomes reported by the study. We will attempt to capture the complexity of the intervention by assessing the following domains developed as part of the Methodological Investigation of Cochrane reviews of Complex Interventions (MICCI) project (Simon Lewin, personal communication):

  • Number of discrete, active components included in the intervention compared with the control
  • Number of behaviours or actions of intervention recipients or participants to which the intervention is directed
  • Number of organisational levels targeted by the intervention
  • The degree of flexibility or tailoring permitted across sites or individuals in intervention implementation/application
  • The level of skill required by those delivering the intervention
  • The level of skill required for the targeted behaviour when entering the study by those receiving the intervention (consumers, professionals, planners) in order to meet the intervention's objectives

We will extract relevant contextual data, based on a context and implementation framework developed as part of the EU-funded INTEGRATE-HTA project, where available (Lisa Pfadenhauer, personal communication). This framework, shown in section nine of Appendix 2, places eight contextual domains within several interrelated levels which include the setting, community, national and international levels:

  • Locational
  • Geographical
  • Epidemiological
  • Socio-economic
  • Socio-cultural
  • Political
  • Legal
  • Ethical

Aspects highlighted by the PROGRESS framework possibly leading to important inequality issues (e.g. place, race, occupation, gender, religion, education, socioeconomic) are also addressed through this framework.

 

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

After piloting and exercises to calibrate the assessment by JB, ER and Hanna Boogaard (HB), two authors (JB, HB, ER, LP or AR) will independently assess the risk of bias of all included studies. Disagreements between two review authors will be resolved through discussion, and a third review author (ER or AvE) will be consulted where necessary.

To do so, we will employ two methods in parallel, the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool as used by the EPOC group (EPOC 2013) and the modified version of the Graphic Appraisal Tool for Epidemiological studies (GATE), as employed by the Public Health Excellence Centre at the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE 2012). Particular attention will be paid to the appropriate consideration of confounders in analysis, e.g. background mortality trends, climatic conditions. We will apply the EPOC-modified Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to RCTs, cluster-RCTs, ITS-EPOC and CBA-EPOC; we will apply the modified GATE tool to all study designs, thus yielding a double assessment of the four lower risk of bias study designs. For these four designs, we will compare any differences in assessment of study quality depending on the choice of tool and conduct sensitivity analyses, as necessary.

 

Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool (EPOC)

The Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, as modified by the Cochrane EPOC group, is widely used and validated and allows for comparison across Cochrane reviews. It assesses risk of bias separately for controlled studies (RCTs, controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and CBA-EPOC) and for interrupted time series (EPOC 2013).

For controlled studies, the assessment is based on the following areas:

  • Sequence generation
  • Allocation concealment
  • Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessors
  • Incomplete outcome data
  • Selective outcome reporting
  • Other sources of bias

For ITS, the assessment is based on the following areas:

  • Intervention independent of other changes
  • Shape of intervention pre-specified
  • Intervention affects outcome data
  • Allocation concealment
  • Incomplete outcome data
  • Selective outcome reporting
  • Other sources of bias

For each of these areas, one of the following summary assessments is given:

  • Low risk of bias: plausible bias unlikely to alter the results
  • Unclear risk of bias: plausible bias that raises some doubt about the results
  • High risk of bias: plausible bias that seriously weakens confidence in the results

 

Modified GATE tool

We will assess randomised studies and controlled before-and-after studies with the GATE tool for quantitative intervention studies. This version of the tool, modified for assessment of public health interventions, is suitable for all intervention study designs, assessing these on a level playing field, and is therefore practical in a review such as this (Jackson 2006; Voss 2013). The GATE appraisal checklist is divided into five sections, allowing for a systematic assessment of aspects related to a study's external validity (section one), as well as internal validity (sections two to four). Section five then allows the review author to give each study an overall quality rating for both external and internal validity. Specifically, sections one to five deal with validity concerns related to the following:

  • Population
  • Method of allocation to intervention (or comparison)
  • Outcomes
  • Analyses
  • Summary

We will rate risk of bias for different aspects within sections one to four as one of the following (NICE 2012):

  • ++ Indicates that for that particular aspect of study design, the study has been designed or conducted in such a way as to minimise the risk of bias
  • + Indicates that either the answer to the checklist question is not clear from the way the study is reported, or that the study may not have addressed all potential sources of bias for that particular aspect of study design
  • – Should be reserved for those aspects of study design in which significant sources of bias may persist
  • Not reported (NR): Should be reserved for those aspects in which the study under review fails to report how they have (or might have) been considered
  • Not applicable (NA): Should be reserved for those study design aspects that are not applicable given the study design under review (for example, allocation concealment would not be applicable for case control studies)

In section five, we will rate overall external and internal validity of a study using one of the following; in considering the internal validity of a study, we will also consider whether exposure measurements were reliable and valid.

  • ++ All or most of the checklist criteria have been fulfilled; where they have not been fulfilled the conclusions are very unlikely to alter
  • + Some of the checklist criteria have been fulfilled; where they have not been fulfilled, or are not adequately described, the conclusions are unlikely to alter
  • – Few or no checklist criteria have been fulfilled and the conclusions are likely or very likely to alter

We will assess interrupted time series studies, uncontrolled before-and-after studies and repeated cross-sectional studies with the GATE tool for quantitative studies reporting correlations and associations. This version of the tool is analogous to the version for intervention studies, but emphasises the selection of the exposure group and statistical control for confounding rather than intervention allocation and blinding.

 

Measures of treatment effect

For studies assessing a continuous outcome, including ambient air concentrations of PM, CO, SO2, NOx or O3, as well as for hospital admissions and lung function measures, we will use the mean difference to assess intervention effect. For dichotomous outcomes, including cardiovascular, respiratory or all-cause mortality and cardiovascular or respiratory events, we will use the risk ratio (RR). We will also include 95% confidence intervals (CI) for all mean difference and RR intervention effects.

 

Unit of analysis issues

Where cluster trials are considered without adjustments for clustering, we will perform re-analysis, where possible, taking into account the correlated nature of within-cluster data.

 

Dealing with missing data

In the case that missing information on study features (e.g. number of time points, randomisation details), intervention characteristics (e.g. additional components, information on intensity) or outcome data (e.g. missing values, variance measure, suspected selective outcome reporting) prevent or limit use of a study, we will contact the investigators.

 

Assessment of heterogeneity

We will assess issues of clinical and methodological heterogeneity through tables, with the documentation of the following relevant study-specific characteristics:

  • Methods: study design, group assignment, exposure assessment, outcome assessment, adjustment for confounders
  • Population: setting, age
  • Intervention: components, duration, intensity/dose, goal
  • Context: geographical susceptibility, baseline mortality and morbidity, baseline PM, political issues (e.g. policies), legal issues (e.g. regulations, guidelines), ethical issues
  • Delivery: delivery agent, organisation and structure

We will assess statistical heterogeneity graphically with a forest plot and statistically with an I2 statistic calculation. We will consider an I2 value greater than 50% to indicate substantial heterogeneity, and will consider it statistically significant if the P value for the Chi2 test is < 0.1. We will create forest plots and I2 calculations using RevMan 5.2 (RevMan 2012).

 

Assessment of reporting biases

Where feasible, we will use a funnel plot to investigate the risk of publication bias by intervention type and outcome measure. We will visually examine the funnel plot for asymmetry. As we are likely to find fewer than 10 studies in each category, we will not be able to conduct statistical tests of asymmetry, such as Begg's and Egger's tests.

 

Data synthesis

For each intervention category (vehicular sources, industrial sources, residential sources and multiple sources), where two or more studies report on the same primary outcome, and for which sufficient methodological and clinical homogeneity exists, we will perform a separate meta-analysis. For studies with multiple comparison groups, we will only analyse those comparisons assessing an intervention/intervention components compared with no intervention/intervention components. We will pool each study design category (i.e. RCTs and cluster-RCTs, ITS-EPOC, CBA-EPOC, ITS, CBA, UBA, CSS) in separate meta-analyses, where pooling is possible. We will examine the following primary outcomes for pooling:

  • PM10
  • PM2.5
  • Coarse PM
  • Combustion-related PM including black carbon, black smoke, elemental carbon and PM absorption
  • Cardiovascular mortality
  • Respiratory mortality
  • All-cause mortality

We will also explore ways to convert PM10 and coarse particles into PM2.5 estimates, with the use of previously published conversion factors (Ballester 2008). In addition, we will explore ways to convert different combustion-related PM indicators into, for example, elemental carbon estimates (Cyrys 2003; Janssen 2011). The use of a common PM2.5 indicator would allow for a greater number of PM-related outcomes to be included in a single meta-analysis. We will synthesise secondary outcomes analogously to primary outcomes and perform meta-analysis where possible and appropriate.

Due to expected differences in intervention components and complexity, setting and study population, we will implement random-effects models for all meta-analyses. We will carry out inverse-variance random-effects meta-analyses using RevMan 5.2 (RevMan 2012). Effects will be considered statistically significant with a P value less than 0.05.

As it is likely that much of the evidence will prove too heterogeneous for statistical pooling purposes, we will conduct another form of evidence synthesis alongside meta-analysis. The harvest plot has been shown to be an effective, clear and transparent way to synthesise evidence for complex interventions (Ogilvie 2008; Turley 2013) and we will implement it in this review. Harvest plots will allow us to synthesise evidence graphically based on all study designs for the effects of the vehicular sources, industrial sources, residential sources and multiple sources intervention categories across all primary and secondary outcomes. We will develop four separate harvest plots, one for each intervention category. We will arrange studies, represented by bars, in rows with regard to outcomes, and identify them by the first three letters of the author's last name. We will illustrate the direction of effect – increasing effect, no effect, decreasing effect – in three columns. Also illustrated, by height of bar, will be appropriateness of study design. The ratings derived from and symbols used within the GATE tool (++, +, -) will represent the risk of bias for each study. We will create harvest plots in Microsoft Power Point.

We will also plot intervention effects on PM10 and PM2.5 reduction against WHO air quality guidelines and/or interim targets (Table 1) to explore to what extent specific interventions are effective in helping reach these targets. We will create plots of intervention effects against WHO air quality guidelines in R (R 2011).

 

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

In order to assess possible sources of heterogeneity due to, for example, intervention design or inclusion of certain more susceptible populations, we may perform subgroup analyses regarding the following issues, although we expect that lack of data will prevent us from conducting most of these:

  • Population characteristics: developing versus developed country, urban versus rural setting, children versus adults
  • Intervention characteristics: number of components, duration of intervention, goal of intervention, intensity/dose of intervention, temporary versus permanent goals, level of implementation, complexity
  • Delivery: delivery agent, organisation and structure, regulatory versus non-regulatory
  • Inequality characteristics based on the PROGRESS framework: place, race, occupation, gender, religion, education, socio-economic status

 

Sensitivity analysis

As part of this review of a complex public health intervention, we will assess the value of going beyond randomised evidence by including both EPOC-recognised designs (CBA-EPOC, ITS-EPOC) and non-EPOC study designs (CBA, UBA, ITS and CSS) based on meta-analyses and harvest plots. We will also examine how the choice of quality appraisal tool – i.e. EPOC-modified Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool versus modified GATE tool – affects any conclusions about the quality of individual studies.

In the main synthesis described above, we will conduct all possible meta-analyses separately for each study design. We will narratively discuss any differences in conclusions based on (i) only randomised studies versus (ii) randomised studies and EPOC-recognised non-randomised designs versus (iii) a very broad inclusion of randomised, EPOC and non-EPOC non-randomised designs. For the second group, i.e. randomised studies and EPOC-recognised designs, we will conduct two additional sensitivity analyses. The first will only consider those studies with a low risk of bias rating based on the EPOC-modified Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool; the second will only consider those studies with a high internal validity rating based on the modified Gate tool.

We will also create two additional sets of harvest plots including only evidence from individually and cluster-randomised trials, and including randomised studies plus CBA-EPOC and ITS-EPOC; we will compare these to the harvest plots of the main synthesis described above.

Of methodological significance will be how the conclusions to be drawn from the review change based on the inclusion of higher risk of bias evidence. Moreover, it will be of interest how the additional information gained from inclusion of these broader study designs compares to the increased time, workload and expertise needed at the screening, data extraction, quality appraisal and evidence synthesis stages.

 

Quality of evidence

In order to assess the quality of the body of evidence used in the above-listed data syntheses, we will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system for grading evidence for each of the seven primary outcomes described above (Guyatt 2008). GRADE will allow us to systematically and transparently grade the quality of the body of evidence for each outcome based on the following factors:

  • Factors decreasing quality of evidence
    • Study limitations
    • Inconsistency of results
    • Indirectness of evidence
    • Imprecision
    • Publication bias
  • Factors increasing quality of evidence
    • Large magnitude of effect
    • Plausible confounding, which would reduce a demonstrated effect
    • Dose-response gradient.

Based on these criteria, we will grade each outcome grouping as one of the following:

  • High quality – further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  • Moderate quality – further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  • Low quality – further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  • Very low quality – any estimate of effect is uncertain

We will create a 'Summary of findings' table to summarise this assessment.

 

Review Advisory Group

The protocol draft was sent to the individuals listed below in Table 3, who formed the membership of our Review Advisory Group (RAG). The RAG is made up of ambient particulate matter pollution and intervention experts as well as potential end-users of the review, who all provided feedback to ensure the review will meet its intended goal of assessing the effectiveness of ambient PM interventions in a systematic and comprehensive way and that the review will appropriately inform policy.


AdvisorOrganisation

Ambient PM policy advisers

Martin LutzSenate Department for Urban Development and the Environment, Berlin, Germany

Leendert van BreePBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

Carlos DoraWHO Department of Public Health and Environment, Geneva

Marie NeiraWHO Department of Public Health and Environment, Geneva

Marie-Eve HerouxWHO European Center for Environment and Health, Bonn

Bryan HubbellUS Environmental Protection Agency

Ambient PM experts

Bert BrunekreefInstitute for Risk Assessment, Utrecht University, Netherlands

C Arden Pope IIIBrigham Young University, US

Nino KuenzliSwiss Tropical and Public Health Institute

Wei HuangPeking University Health Science Center, Beijing, China



Table 3: Membership of Review Advisory Group

 

Acknowledgements

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest

We would like to acknowlegde the generous comments made by our Review Advisory Group, who have helped to inform the Background section and the parameters of the planned review.

 

Appendices

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest
 

Appendix 1. MEDLINE search strategy


SearchesResults

1exp Air Pollution/42851

2exp Particulate Matter/41780

3(Air adj2 (pollut* or quality or ambient)).ti,ab.23131

4(atmospher* adj2 pollut*).ti,ab.1760

5(Particulate matter or ambient particulate or PM or PM1* or PM2* or PM10* or ultrafine particulate* or ultrafine particle* or UFP or coarse particle*).ti,ab.42007

6(Combustion or Soot or Black smoke or Black carbon or Elemental carbon or wood smoke).ti,ab.3260

7((Emission* or air or atmospher*) adj2 (anthropogenic or motor or vehicle or road or power generation or indust* or combustion or smelting or construction or demolition or burning or residential)).ti,ab.2947

8or/1-6115388

9exp Mortality/ or Cardiovascular Diseases/mo or Respiratory Tract Diseases/mo290801

10(Mortalit* or Death*1).ti,ab.855075

11(Cardiovascular adj3 (mortality or death* or fatal* or hospital admission* or event*1 or disease or outcome*)).ti,ab.103062

12(Respiratory adj3 (mortality or death or fatal* or hospital admission* or event*1 or disease or outcome*)).ti,ab.20224

13(Heart attack* or stroke or strokes).ti,ab.140714

14(asthma or Pneumonia or lung cancer or lung function* or lung disease* or pulmonary function* or pulmonary disease*).ti,ab.268411

15(exp air pollution/sn, td or exp particulate matter/sn, td) and (Improv* or reduc* or lower* or increas* or adverse or measure* or outcome* or effect* or impact* or concentration or level*).ti,ab.2732

16((Improv* or reduc* or lower* or increas* or adverse or measure* or outcome* or effect* or impact* or concentration or level* or absor* or exposure* or exposed) adj3 (air pollution or particulate matter or ambient particulate or PM or PM1* or PM2* or PM10* or coarse particule* or combustion or soot or black smoke or black carbon or elemental carbon)).ti,ab.12862

17((Improv* or reduc* or lower* or increas* or adverse or measure* or outcome* or effect* or impact* or concentration or level* or absor* or exposure* or exposed) adj3 (carbon monoxide or SO2 or sulphur dioxide or sulfur dioxide or NO2 or nitrogen dioxide or O3 or ozone or UFP or ultrafine particle*)).ti,ab.13505

18or/9-171438592

19exp air pollution/pc or exp particulate matter/pc8617

20((emission* or air or PM or PM1* or PM2* or PM10* or particulate matter or ambient particulate or ultrafine particulate* or ultrafine particle* or UFP or coarse particle* or combustion* or soot or black smoke or black carbon or elemental carbon or climate or green or smoke) adj8 (control* or regulation* or policy or policies or guideline or intervention* or act or directive* or vehicle or transport* or traffic or automobile* or car*1 or industr* or fuel or emission filter* or cooking or heating or cookstove* or stove* or power generat* or energy or zone* or Olympic or residential or wood burning or mobile or Low* or reduc* or improv* or clean* or congestion* or coal burning or ban or bans)).ti,ab.64335

21air pollution/pc or smoke/pc4672

22((Improved or clean* or low emission or efficient*) adj1 (cookstove* or stove or stoves or heater)).ti,ab.83

23Wood burning regulation*.ti,ab.0

24or/19-2370074

258 and 18 and 249260

26randomized controlled trial.pt.382845

27controlled clinical trial.pt.88922

28comparative study.pt.1709290

29intervention studies/6655

30evaluation studies/200758

31program evaluation/46779

32random allocation/ or clinical trial/ or single-blind method/ or double-blind method/ or control groups/617058

33(randomized or randomised or placebo or randomly or groups).ab.1628146

34trial.ti,ab.351312

35(time adj series).ab,ti. or (interrupted* adj2 series).ti,ab.14327

36quasi-experiment$.ab,ti.5095

37(pre test or pretest or pre-intervention or post-intervention or posttest or post test).ab,ti.19398

38(controlled before or "before and after stud$" or follow-up-assessment).ab,ti.4005

39((evaluat$ or intervention or interventional or treatment) and (control or controlled or study or program$ or comparison or "before and after" or comparative)).ab,ti.2237809

40((intervention or interventional or process or program) adj8 (evaluat$ or effect$ or outcome$)).ab,ti.139272

41(program or programme or secondary analys$).ti,ab.341437

42ecological study.ti,ab.1333

43(Case study or observational study or cohort or uncontrolled study or observational research).ti,ab. or exp Epidemiologic Studies/1754779

44or/26-435780889

45exp animals/ not humans.sh.4021923

4644 not 454774240

4725 and 464107



 

Appendix 2. Data extraction form

Interventions to reduce ambient particulate matter air pollution and their effect on health – Data extraction form


Study ID:Report ID:Date form completed:

Version number:

First author:Year of study:Data extractor:

Citation:



 

1. General information


Publication type: Journal article Abstract Other (specify)

Country of study:

Funding source of study:Potential conflict of interest from funding??

Yes No Unclear



 

2. Study eligibility


Study characteristicsPage/para/figure #


Type of studyRandomised controlled trial (RCT)

Cluster-randomised controlled trial (cluster-RCT)
Controlled before-and-after (CBA) study employing:

  • Contemporaneous data collection
  • Comparable control site
  • At least 2 intervention and 2 control clusters

Interrupted time series (ITS)

  • At least 3 time point before and 3 after the intervention
  • Clearly defined intervention point
Interrupted time series study, before and after study, with clear intervention point and not meeting EPOC criteria

A process evaluation or qualitative study relating to an included study designOther design (specify):

Does the study design meet the criteria for inclusion?

Yes No [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] Exclude Unclear



Description in text:



ParticipantsDescribe the participants included:


Are participants defined as a group having specific demographic, social or cultural characteristics?Yes No Unclear

Details:

How is the geographic boundary defined?Details:

Specific location:

Do the participants meet the criteria for inclusion?

Yes No [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] Exclude Unclear


Description in text:




Type of interventionDescription of intervention:


Does study relate to a specific intervention which is expected to lead to reduction in ambient PM concentrations and which falls into one of the defined intervention categories?

Yes No[RIGHTWARDS ARROW] Exclude Unclear


PM target source of interventionVehicular

Industrial

Residential

Multiple

Does the intervention meet the criteria for inclusion?

Yes No [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] Exclude Unclear


Description in text:







Types of outcome measuresList primary outcomes:Ambient air quality:

Human health:

List of secondary outcomes:Ambient air quality:

Human health:

Does study assess at least one primary or secondary outcome, qualifying it for inclusion?

Yes No [RIGHTWARDS ARROW] Exclude Unclear



 

3. Summary of assessment for inclusion


Include in review Exclude from review

Reason for exclusion:

Independently assessed and then compared?

Yes No
Differences resolved?

Yes No

Request further details?

Yes No

Contact details of authors:

Notes:



DO NOT PROCEED IF PAPER IS EXCLUDED FROM REVIEW

 

4. Study details


Study intentionDocumentation from paperPage/para/figure #

Aim of intervention

What was the problem that this intervention was designed to address?

Aim of study

What was the study designed to assess? Are these aims clearly stated?

Start and end date of study

Identify which elements of planning of the intervention should be included

Total duration of study

For ITS: length of measured time points




MethodsDocumentation from paperPage/para/figure #

Method of recruitment of participants:

How were potential participants approached and invited to participate? Where were participants recruited from? Does this differ from the intervention setting?

Inclusion/exclusion criteria for participation in study

Total number of intervention and comparison groups

Reported baseline risk

e.g. baseline or population risk noted in Background

Are references provided?

Sample size calculation

What assumptions were made? Were these assumptions appropriate?

Unit of randomisation/intervention allocation

Was allocation by individuals or clusters/groups?

Unit of analysis

What was the unit of analysis? Is this the same as the unit of randomisation/intervention allocation?

Statistical methods

What methods were used?



 

5. Outcomes


Outcomes overviewDescriptions as stated in the report/paperPage/para/figure #


Primary outcomes

Which primary outcomes were assessed in the review?
Ambient air quality outcomes:

Human health outcomes:

Secondary outcomes

Which secondary outcomes were assessed in the review?
Ambient air quality outcomes:

Human health outcomes:





Outcome 1:Descriptions as stated in the report/paperPage/para/figure #

Is outcome 1 a primary or secondary outcome?Primary Secondary

Outcome definition

How was outcome 1 defined and measured in study?

For health outcomes:

How was outcome defined in study?

Is there adequate latency for the outcome to be observed?

For ambient air quality outcomes:

How was outcome defined in study

To which outcome grouping does outcome 1 belong

Were concentrations given in 24-hour (+/-2 hours) measurements or multiples of 24 hours?

From how many monitoring sites were PM data taken?
PM10 PM2.5 coarse particles combustion

What time points were measured?

What time points were reported?

Is the measure repeated on the same individuals or redrawn from the population/community for each time point?

What is the unit of measurement?



Copy and paste the preceding section for all other included outcomes.

 

6. Results


ParticipantsDocumentation from paper for both intervention groups as well as for control/comparison group, where applicablePage/para/figure #

Percentage of selected individuals who agreed to participate

Total number randomized/allocated to each intervention and comparison group

For CCTs, number of clusters and number of people per cluste

Were there any significant baseline imbalances?

Describe any in detail

Were there socio-demographic differences between withdrawals and exclusions and remaining population?

Percentage of participants who received the allocated intervention/comparison

Percentage of participants who completed the study

Number and reason for withdrawals and exclusions for each intervention/comparison group

Was intention-to-treat analysis performed?

Were any relevant process aspects reported, eg intervention uptake, fidelity, etc?

Were any relevant economic aspects reported?

Was data imputation performed? Specify whether imputation was on outcome and/or confounder data



RCT/CCT – Dichotomous outcome


Descriptions as stated in the report/paperPage/para/figure #



Comparison

Outcome



Subgroup



Time point



Statistical model applied

Variables for which model was adjusted

How were these variables treated in the model?

ResultsInterventionComparison




EventsNo. participantsEventsNo. participants


Effect estimate with variance measureUnadjustedAdjustedUnadjustedAdjusted


Number of missing participants and reasons




Any other results reported

Reanalysis required? (specific)



Reanalysis possible?



Reanalysed results



RCT/CCT – Continuous outcome


Descriptions as stated in the report/paperPage/para/figure #



Comparison



Outcome



Subgroup



Time point



Statistical model applied



Variables for which model was adjusted

How were these variables treated in the model?



ResultsInterventionComparison




Number of participants measured in each group




Mean with variance measureUnadjustedAdjustedUnadjustedAdjusted




Post intervention or change from baseline?




Number of missing participants and reasons




Any other results reported



Reanalysis required? (specific)



Reanalysis possible?



Reanalysed results



Before-and-after study


Descriptions as stated in the report/paperPage/

Para/ Figure #



Comparison



Outcome



Subgroup



Timepoint



Statistical model applied



Variables for which model was adjusted.

How were these variables treated in the model?



ResultsInterventionComparison




Number of participants measured in each group




Baseline result (with variance measure)UnadjustedAdjustedUnadjustedAdjusted


Post-intervention result (with variance measure)

Post-baseline change (with variance measure)

Difference in change (with variance measure)UnadjustedAdjusted






Number of missing participants and reasons



Any other results reported



Reanalysis required? (specific)



Reanalysis possible?



Reanalyzed results



Interrupted time series


Descriptions as stated in the report/paperPage/

Para/ Figure #




Outcome




Subgroup




Number of time points measured




Number of time points analyzed




Statistical model applied




Variables for which model was adjusted.

How were these variables treated in the model?




ResultsPre-interventionPost intervention





Number of participants measured for each group





Mean value (with variance measure)UnadjustedAdjustedUnadjustedAdjusted


Difference in means (post-pre)

Percent relative change

Individual time point results





Number of missing participants and reasons





Any other results reported




Reanalysis required? (specific)




Reanalysis possible?




Reanalyzed results



 

7. Subgroups


Descriptions as stated in the report/paperPage/para/figure #

Participant subgroups

Which participant subgroups from paper can be analysed?

Intervention subgroups

Which intervention subgroups from paper can be analysed?

Context subgroups

Which subgroups dealing with contextual factors from paper can be analysed?

Inequality subgroups

Which subgroups dealing with inequality from paper can be analysed?



 

8. Intervention and Comparison


Group nameDescriptions as stated in the report/paperPage/para/figure #

Interventions design: components

Technology/infrastructure

Which technology/infrastructure components were introduced as part of the intervention?

Education/training

Which educational or training components were introduced as part of the intervention?

Policy/regulation

Which policy or regulation components were introduced as part of the intervention?

Intervention design: execution

Intervention duration

Over which period of time was the intervention implemented?

Intervention intensity/dose

What was the intensity/duration of different intervention components (e.g. intensity of training, degree of incentives or disincentives such as charges or fines)?

Intervention delivery: delivery agent

Delivary agent

What individuals or groups were responsible for the delivery of different intervention componenets?

Governmental sectors

Which governmental sectors were involved in the delivery of different intervention components (e.g. Environment, Transport, Energy and/or Health sectors)?

Intervention delivery: organisation and structure

Level of delivery

At what level was the intervention delivered, e.g. local, regional, national, international?

Funding

Were any funding sources important in the delivery of the intervention?

What was the amount and/or duration of intervention funding mentioned in study?

Theory

Intervention goals

What was the specific goal of the intervention (e.g. improving air quality, traffic abatement, climate mitigation, etc)?

Were intervention goals short-term or long-term




Intervention complexityDescriptions as stated in the report/paperLevel of complexityPage/para/figure #

Dimension 1:

Discrete, active components included in the intervention

Dimension 2:

Behaviours or actions of intervention recipients or participants to which the intervention is directed.

Dimension 3:

Organisational levels targeted by the intervention

Dimension 4:

The degree of flexibility or tailoring permitted across sites or individuals in intervention implementation

Dimension 5:

The level of skill (defined as the ability to do something, arising from training, practice or experience) required by those delivering the intervention

Dimension 6:

The skills required for the targeted behavior when entering the study by those receiving the intervention in order to meet the intervention's objectives



 

9. Context


DomainsDescription as stated in paper/reportPage/para/figure #

Locational: which locational characteristics influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reach and its effectiveness?

Geographical: which geographical characteristics influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reach and its effectiveness?

Epidemiological: which epidemiological characteristics of the community influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reach and its effectiveness?

Economic: which economic characteristics of the community influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reach and its effectiveness?

Social: which social characteristics of the community influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reach and its effectiveness?

Cultural: which cultural characteristics of the community influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reach and its effectiveness?

Political: what aspects of the political environment influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reach and its effectiveness?

Legal: what aspects of the legal environment influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reach and its effectiveness?

Ethical: what aspects of the ethical environment influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reach and its effectiveness?

International: what aspects of the international environment influence the intervention, its implementation, its population reached and its effectiveness?



 

Contributions of authors

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest

JB was responsible for drafting the review, with strong content support given by AvE, HB and ER, and methodological support from ER and AR. RT was responsible for drafting the search strategy. LP and AR reviewed protocol drafts and offered feedback at multiple stages.

 

Declarations of interest

  1. Top of page
  2. Background
  3. Objectives
  4. Methods
  5. Acknowledgements
  6. Appendices
  7. Contributions of authors
  8. Declarations of interest

None

References

Additional references

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Background
  4. Objectives
  5. Methods
  6. Acknowledgements
  7. Appendices
  8. Contributions of authors
  9. Declarations of interest
  10. Additional references
Ballester 2008
  • Ballester F, Medina S, Boldo E, Goodman P, Neuberger M, Iniguez C, et al. Apheis network. Reducing ambient levels of fine particulates could substantially improve health: a mortality impact assessment for 26 European cities. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2008;62(2):98-105.
Bell 2010
  • Bell ML, Belanger K, Ebisu K, Gent JF, Hyung JL, Koutrakis P, et al. Prenatal exposure to fine particulate matter and birth weight. Epidemiology 2010;21(6):884-91.
Bell 2011
  • Bell ML, Morgenstern RD, Harrington W. Quantifying the human health benefits of air pollution policies: Review of recent studies and new directions in accountability research. Environmental Science and Policy 2011;14(4):357-68.
Bell 2012
  • Bell ML, Ebisu K. Environmental inequality in exposures to airborne particulate matter components in the United States. Environmental Health Perspectives 2012;120(12):1699-704.
Brook 2002
  • Brook RD, Brook JR, Urch B, Vincent R, Rajagopalan S, Silverman F. Inhalation of fine particulate air pollution and ozone causes acute arterial vasoconstriction in healthy adults. Circulation 2002;105:1534-6.
Brook 2004
  • Brook RD, Franklin B, Cascio W, Hong Y, Howard G, Lipsett M, et al. Air pollution and cardiovascular disease: a statement for healthcare professionals from the expert panel on population and prevention science of the American Heart Association. Circulation 2004;109:2655-71.
Chow 1995
Cyrys 2003
  • Cyrys J, Heinrich J, Hoek G, Meliefste K, Lewne M, Gehring U, et al. Comparison between different traffic-related particle indicators: elemental carbon (EC), PM2.5 mass, and absorbance. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology 2003;13(2):134-43.
Dadvand 2013
  • Dadvand P, Parker J, Bell ML, Bonzini M, Brauer M, Darrow LA, et al. Maternal exposure to particulate air pollution and term birth weight: a multi-country evaluation of effect and heterogeneity. Children's Health 2013;121(3):367-73.
DeMeo 2004
  • DeMeo DL, Zanobetti A, Litonjua AA, Coull BA, Schwartz J, Gold DR. Ambient air pollution and oxygen saturation. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 2004;170:383-7.
Elder 2006
  • Elder A, Gelein R, Silva V, Feikert T, Opanashuk L, Carter J, et al. Translocation of inhaled ultrafine manganese oxide particles to the central nervous system. Environmental Health Perspectives 2006;114(8):1172-8.
EPA 2011
  • United States Environmental Protection Agency. The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act 1990 to 2020. EPA 2011.
EPOC 2013
  • Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Study designs accepted in EPOC reviews. http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-resources (accessed April 17, 2013).
Finkelstein 2003
  • Finkelstein MM, Jerrett M, DeLuca P, Finkelstein N, Verma DK, Chapman K, et al. Relation between income, air pollution and morality: a cohort study. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2003;169(5):397-402.
Gong 2004
  • Gong HJ, Linn WS, Clark KW, Anderson KR, Geller MD, Sioutas C. Respiratory responses to exposures with fine particulates and nitrogen dioxide in the elderly with and without COPD. Inhalation Toxicology 2005;17:123-32.
Guyatt 2008
  • Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal 2008;336:924-6.
Gwynn 2001
Heal 2012
HEI 2003
  • HEI Accountability Working Group. Assessing health impact of air quality regulations: concepts and methods for accountability research. HEI Communication 11 September 2003.
Henschel 2012
  • Henschel S, Atkinson R, Zeka A, Le Tertre A, Analitis A, Kasouyanni K, et al. Air pollution interventions and their impact on public health. International Journal of Public Health 2012;57(5):757-68.
Higgins 2012
Jackson 2006
  • Jackson R, Ameratunga S, Broad J, Connor J, Lethaby A, Robb G, et al. The GATE frame: critical appraisal with pictures. Evidence Based Medicine 2006;11(2):35-8.
Janssen 2011
  • Janssen NAH, Hoek G, Simic-Lawson M, Fischer P, van Bree L, Brink H, et al. Black carbon as an additional indicator of the adverse health effects of airborne particles compared with PM10 and PM2.5. Environmental Health Perspectives 2011;119(12):1691-9.
Jerrett 2004
  • Jerrett M, Burnett RT, Brook J, Kanaroglou P, Giovis C, Finkelstein N, et al. Do socioeconomic characteristics modify the short term association between air pollution and mortality? Evidence from a zonal time series in Hamilton, Canada. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2004;58:31-40.
Kousa 2002
  • Kousa A, Oglesby L, Koistinen K, Künzli N, Jantunen M. Exposure chain of urbain air PM2.5 - associations between ambient fixed site, residential outdoor, indoor, workplace and personal exposures in four European cities in the EXPOLIS-study. Atmospheric Environment 2002;36:3031-9.
Lim 2012
  • Lim S, Vos T, Flaxman AD, Danaei G, Shibuya K, Adair-Rohani H, et al. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 2012;380:2224-60.
Lippmann 2006
Lippmann 2013
  • Lippmann M, Chen L-C, Gordon T, Ito K, Thurston GD. National Particle Component Toxicity (NPACT) initiative: integrated epidemiologic and toxicologic studies of the health effects of particulate matter component. Research Report (Health Effects Institute) 2013;177:5-13.
Martins 2004
  • Martins MCH, Fatigati FL, Vespoli TC, Martins LC, Pereira LAA, Martins MA, et al. Influence of socioeconomic conditions on air pollution adverse health effects in elderly people: an analysis of six regions in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2004;58:41-6.
Miranda 2011
  • Miranda ML, Edwards SE, Keating MH, Paul CJ. Making the environmental justice grade: the relative burden of air pollution exposure in the United States. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2011;8:1755-71.
Nemmar 2002
NICE 2012
  • National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance. Third Edition. NICE, September 2012.
NRC 2002
  • National Research Council. Estimating the public health benefits of proposed air pollution regulations. National Academy Press 2002.
Oberdörster 2005
Ogilvie 2008
  • Ogilvie D, Fayter D, Petticrew M, Sowden A, Thomas S, Whitehead M, et al. The harvest plot: a method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2008;8:8.
Ostro 2010
  • Ostro B, Lipsett M, Reynolds P, Goldberg D, Herty A, Garcia C, et al. Long-term exposure to constituents of fine particulate air pollution and mortality: results from the California teachers study. Environmental Health Perspectives 2010;118(3):363-9.
Pastor 2005
Phelan 2004
  • Phelan JC, Link BG, Diez-Roux A, Kawachi I, Levin B. "Fundamental causes" of social inequalities in mortality: a test of the theory. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 2004;45:268-85.
Pope 1995
  • Pope CA 3rd, Thun MJ, Namboodiri MM, Dockery DW, Evans JS, Speizer FE, Heath CW Jr. Particulate air pollution as a predictor of mortailty in a prospective study of U.S. adults. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine March 1995;151(3):669-674.
Pope 2006
R 2011
  • R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2011.
REVIHAAP 2013
  • Review of evidence on health aspects of air pollution - REVIHAAP Project. First results. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe 2013:4-11.
RevMan 2012
  • The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.2. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Rückerl 2011
  • Rückerl R, Schneider A, Breitner S, Cyrys J, Peters A. Health effects of particulate air pollution: A review of epidemiological evidence. Inhalation Toxicology 2011;23(10):555-92.
Stanek 2011
  • Stanek LW, Sacks JD, Dutton SJ, Dubois JB. Attributing health effects to apportioned components and sources of particulate matter: An evaluation of collective results. Atmospheric Environment 2011;45:5655-63.
Stieb 2002
  • Stieb DM, Judek S, Burnett RT. Meta-analysis of time-series studies of air pollution and mortality: effects of gases and particles and the influence of cause of death, age, and season. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association 2002;52:470-84.
Turley 2013
Valdes 2012
  • Valdes A, Zanobetti A, Halonen J, Cifuentes L, Morata D, Schwartz J. Elemental concentrations of ambient particles and cause specific mortality in Santiago, Chile: a time series study. Environmental Health 2012;11:82.
van Eeden 2005
  • van Eeden SF, Yeung A, Quinlam K, Hogg JC. Systemic response to ambient particulate matter. Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society 2005;2:61-7.
van Erp 2012
  • van Erp AM, Kelly FJ, Demerjian KL, Pope A III, Cohen AJ. Progress in research to assess the effectiveness of air quality interventions towards improving public health. Air Quality, Atmosphere and Health 2012;5:217-30.
Vedal 2013
  • Vedal S, Campen MJ, McDonald JD, Kaufman JD, Larson TV, Sampson PD, et al. National Particle Component Toxicity (NPACT) initiative report on cardiovascular effects. Research Report (Health Effects Institute) 2013;178:5-8.
Voss 2013
  • Voss PH, Rehfuess EA. Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of public health interventions: an empirical study on the impact of choice of tool on meta-analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2013;67(1):98-104.
WHO 2006
  • Air quality guidelines global update 2005. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe 2006:37-41, 217-75.
WHO 2007
  • Health relevance of particulate matter from various sources. Report on a WHO workshop, Bonn, Germany, 26-27 March 2007. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. WHO Europe, 2007.