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.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (72.5 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Greenland S. Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol Rev. 1987;9:1–30. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.epirev.a036298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Greenland S., Robins J. M. Conceptual problems in the definition and interpretation of attributable fractions. Am J Epidemiol. 1988 Dec;128(6):1185–1197. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115073. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- HILL A. B. THE ENVIRONMENT AND DISEASE: ASSOCIATION OR CAUSATION? Proc R Soc Med. 1965 May;58:295–300. doi: 10.1177/003591576505800503. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hertz-Picciotto I. Epidemiology and quantitative risk assessment: a bridge from science to policy. Am J Public Health. 1995 Apr;85(4):484–491. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.4.484. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Neutra R. R., Trichopoulos D. The place of epidemiology in environmental decisions: needed support for the development of risk assessment policy. Environ Health Perspect. 1993 Dec;101 (Suppl 4):67–69. doi: 10.1289/ehp.93101s467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rockhill B., Newman B., Weinberg C. Use and misuse of population attributable fractions. Am J Public Health. 1998 Jan;88(1):15–19. doi: 10.2105/ajph.88.1.15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Scott-Samuel A. Health impact assessment--theory into practice. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Nov;52(11):704–705. doi: 10.1136/jech.52.11.704. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Taubes G. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science. 1995 Jul 14;269(5221):164–169. doi: 10.1126/science.7618077. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]