Back to Search Start Over

Evaluation and use of epidemiological evidence for environmental health risk assessment: WHO guideline document

Authors :
Aaron Cohen
Bogdan Wojtyniak
Jack Spengler
Lynne Edwards
Gerhard K. Raabe
Manolis Kogevinas
Marco Martuzzi
Ben Armstrong
Robert Maynard
Michal Krzyanowski
Rolaf Van Leeuwen
Klea Katsouyanni
Larry W. Chambers
Karl-Heinz Jöckel
Charles Poole
Nino Künzli
Maged Younes
Ross Anderson
David Gee
Bernd Seifert
Pierre Jouannet
Paul Harrison
Simon Rozendaal
Denis Zmirou
Erik Lebret
Douglas L. Weed
Göran Pershagen
John J. Vandenberg
Matti Kamppinen
Paolo Vineis
Source :
Scopus-Elsevier

Abstract

Environmental health risk assessment is increasingly being used in the development of environmental health policies, public health decision making, the establishment of environmental regulations, and research planning. The credibility of risk assessment depends, to a large extent, on the strength of the scientific evidence on which it is based. It is, therefore, imperative that the processes and methods used to evaluate the evidence and estimate health risks are clear, explicit, and based on valid epidemiological theory and practice. Epidemiological Evidence for Environmental Health Risk Assessment is a World Health Organization (WHO) guideline document. The primary target audiences of the guidelines are expert review groups that WHO (or other organizations) might convene in the future to evaluate epidemiological evidence on the health effects of environmental factors. These guidelines identify a set of processes and general approaches to assess available epidemiological information in a clear, consistent, and explicit manner. The guidelines should also help in the evaluation of epidemiological studies with respect to their ability to support risk assessment and, consequently, risk management. Conducting expert reviews according to such explicit guidelines would make health risk assessment and subsequent risk management and risk communication processes more readily understood and likely to be accepted by policymakers and the public. It would also make the conclusions reached by reviews more readily acceptable as a basis for future WHO guidelines and other recommendations, and would provide a more rational basis for setting priorities for future research.

Details

Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Scopus-Elsevier
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....20b5f227773c03c8abeaa841794693c4