Search

Evidence-based political measures need reliable information about the health status of a population and the determinants affecting health. Here, environment and health indicators can provide helpful additional insights.This article provides an overview of existing indicators in the field of environment and health.There are single indicators and indicator sets describing solely the environment or health as well as some indicators integrating both aspects.The indicator sets cover classical epidemiological indicators but also summary measures of population health, which combine mortality and morbidity as well as simple descriptions of the exposure towards environmental risks. The indicator sets mostly cover water and air quality related aspects. For some of the indicators their influence on health is also presented. Furthermore, environment related health indicators are part of sustainability indicator sets. There are indicators on the international, European, national, and municipal level.All indicator sets aim to support policy-making by advising on measures and setting priorities in the area of environment and health protection. However not all indicators reflect the effect of the environment on health adequately. Therefore, further development of the existing indicators is necessary to reflect current progress (e. g. political needs) and to include new scientific evidence in the field of environment and health. A continuous provision, review, and interpretation of meaningful indicators is required to identify trends and to react to these in order to protect the environment and health. This is necessary to adequately pursue the precautionary principle.

Current international studies show that environment-related diseases disproportionately affect vulnerable people. This is a case of environmental injustice. Environmental justice goes beyond the mere description of environment- and health-related social inequalities by comprising two dimensions of justice as a normative approach: distributional and procedural justice. Attempts to explain the link between social circumstances, the environment and health deal with both the socially unequal distribution of environmental hazards and environmental resources (exposure variation) and social differences in vulnerability to the health effects of environmental exposures (effect modification). Integrated monitoring approaches provide the basis for deriving interventions under various aspects of environmental justice. Parting from public health research and embedded in the Health in All Policies (HiAP) concept, environmental justice has now been taken up in a number of fields, including politics, administration and practice. There are strategic considerations and attempts to anchor it in politics at the federal, state and the communal level, both by government and non-government groups. Health-promoting urban development is a core field for intervention. The Soziale Stadt (Social City) programme for promoting urban planning and construction as well as place oriented sectoral planning make an important contribution by helping to focus on urban spaces with multiple health hazards and to implement target group-oriented participation processes. There continues to be a need to develop methods and systematically implemented evaluations of political strategies and corresponding interventions regarding their effects on inequalities in health and environmental justice.

Environmental risk factors can have a substantial impact on population health. With the environmental burden of disease (EBD) approach, the health losses attributable to environmental risk factors can be quantified using disability-adjusted life years (DALY).The aim of this article is to present and discuss available EBD estimates with a focus on Germany.Using current EBD studies, the share of the burden of disease attributable to environmental risk factors globally and DALYs for Germany are presented. Ambient particulate matter (PM), water-related risks and environmental noise are used as examples to emphasize the importance of availability and quality of input data for burden of disease assessments.The share of the global burden of disease attributable to environmental risk factors varies according to the available studies and lies between 13 and 22%. For Germany, EBD estimates are available for 12 environmental risk factors. Most estimates are available for particulate matter in ambient air, however, the estimated burden differs greatly. Nonetheless, according to current knowledge, particulate matter pollution is the environmental risk factor with the highest burden of disease in Germany.Differences in the estimated burden of disease for the considered risk factors are due to varying underlying assumptions, e. g. for life expectancy or counterfactual value and the input data used.

Environmental medical syndromes comprise sick building syndrome (SBS), multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS)/idiopathic environmental intolerances (IEI), electromagnetic hypersensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), burnout, fibromyalgia, and the candida syndrome. There is also some overlap described in the literature. There is still no established knowledge of etiology, pathology, pathophysiology, diagnostics, therapy, prevention and prognosis. These syndromes are thought to result from a complex interaction of physical, chemical and/or (micro)biological environmental stresses, individual dispositions, psychological influencing factors, perceptual and processing processes, variants of somatization disorders, culturally or socially caused distress, or simply iatrogenic causation. Examination and treatment methods must be developed or existing ones scientifically validated. However, all uncertainties in the assessment of these syndromes do not absolve the physician from taking patients seriously and helping them as best as possible.

In addition to primary and secondary special care, a special type of care was created in the 2015 German Health Care Strengthening Act [GKV-Versorgungsstärkungsgesetz]: medical care centres for adult people with mental and multiple disabilities (MCAMD). This closed a gap in the German healthcare system and part of Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was implemented.Experiences from pilot projects are useful while implementing these centres. The issue is therefore: which are the supporting (s) and inhibiting (i) factors when establishing MCAMDs in the view of health care providers?Based on open guided expert interviews medical directors and initiators of existing and planned centres were interviewed. Data analysis was done by qualitative content analysis.Healthcare providers think reducing barriers in people's minds is most important. In the course of approval procedures, reservations from different actors and institutions were considered (i). During financial negotiations, health insurance companies requested a characterisation of the target group using the ICD-lists, which doesn't comply with the needs of the users (i). Implementation was only possible with a great effort from the initiators paired with willingness from actors of the association of statutory health insurance physicians and the health insurances (s).This paper describes the process used to implement MCAMDs. Potential centre providers can be inspired by these results. Further research on the process of implementation of these medical centres is needed, especially taking into account all involved parties.