Table 6.
Health outcomes associated with dumpsites and open burning.
| Study Location | Study Design | Main Findings | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mortality | |||
| Brazil | Cohort study (retrospective) |
Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for areas of 2 km around the solid waste landfill sites (95% CI): - bladder cancer: 0.98 (0.79, 1.21) - liver cancer: 1.00 (0.86, 1.16) - leukaemia in adults: 0.92 (0.77, 1.10) - leukaemia in children: 0.84 (0.54, 1.31) Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for areas of 2 km around the solid waste landfill sites (95% CI): - congenital malformation: 0.86 (0.72, 1.03) |
[59] |
| Adverse birth and neonatal outcomes | |||
| Alaska | Cohort study (retrospective) |
Adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) describing the relations between low and high hazard exposure categories and incidence of low and very low birth weight, preterm birth, and intrauterine growth retardation: - low birth weight: 2.06 (1.28, 3.32), p < 0.05 a - low birth weight adjusted for gestation: 2.20 (1.26, 3.85), p < 0.05 a - very low birth weight: 1.17 (0.37, 3.67) - preterm birth: 1.24 (0.89, 1.74) - intrauterine growth retardation: 3.98 (1.93, 8.21), p < 0.05 a |
[58] |
| Alaska | Cohort study (retrospective) |
Adjusted rate ratios (95% CI) describing the relationships between lower and higher hazard exposure categories and incidence of foetal and neonatal death and congenital anomalies: - all deaths: 0.65 (0.34, 1.27) - foetal deaths: 0.75 (0.28, 1.99) - neonatal deaths: 0.55 (0.22, 1.38) - all congenital anomalies (CA), (listed separately in the categories below): 1.37 (0.92, 2.04) - central nervous system CA: 2.36 (0.37, 14.71) - circulatory/respiratory CA: 1.42 (0.39, 5.42) - gastrointestinal CA: 0.58 (0.14, 2.40) - urogenital CA: 2.71 (0.67, 10.95) - musculoskeletal/integumental CA: 1.61 (0.79, 3.29) - others CA: 1.38 (0.77, 2.39) - multiple CA: 1.33 (0.34, 5.20) |
[60] |
| Gastroenteritis | |||
| Swaziland | Cross-sectional study |
Diseases which affected residents: - diarrhoea: 16% of closer residents vs. 5% of further away residents Reasons for hospitalization among the interviewed: - diarrhoea: 16% of closer residents vs. 26% of further away residents - cholera: 12% of closer residents vs. 0% of further away residents |
[20] |
| Nigeria | Cross-sectional study |
Diseases which affected residents b: - cholera and diarrhoea: 10 closer households vs. 5 further away households reported 1–2 cases; 0 closer households vs. 0 further away households reported 3–4 cases; 0 closer households vs. 0 further away households reported at least 5 cases |
[61] |
| Sierra Leone | Cross-sectional study |
Diseases which affected residents c: - diarrhoea: about 10% of closer residents vs. about 12% of further away residents - cholera: about 11% of closer residents vs. about 15% of further away residents |
[62] |
| Ghana | Cross-sectional study |
Diseases which affected residents d: - cholera: (a) 67%; (b) 33%; (c) 0% (out of a total of 6 people affected) - typhoid fever: (a) 75%; (b) 25%; (c) 0% (out of a total of 12 people affected) |
[63] |
| Vector-borne diseases | |||
| Swaziland | Cross-sectional study |
Diseases which affected residents: - malaria: 36% of closer residents vs. 13% of further away residents Reasons for hospitalization among the interviewed: - malaria: 44% of closer residents vs. 18% of further away residents |
[20] |
| Nigeria | Cross-sectional study |
Diseases which affected residents b: - malaria: 20 closer households vs. 24 further away households reported 1–2 cases; 4 closer households vs. 8 further away households reported 3–4 cases; 0 closer households vs. 1 further away households reported at least 5 cases |
[61] |
| Sierra Leone | Cross-sectional study |
Diseases which affected residents c: - malaria: 40% of closer residents vs. 35% of further away residents |
[62] |
| Ghana | Cross-sectional study |
Diseases which affected residents d: - malaria: (a) 73%; (b) 25%; (c) 2% (out of a total of 103 people affected) |
[63] |
ap < 0.05. The authors indicated the p-value when it was lower than 0.05; b The authors categorized counts of reported cases into groups for each health outcome and then used a chi-square test to test for differences. No significant differences were found; c The % is an approximate value taken from a figure in the article; d Comparing three temporal distances between people and disposal sites: (a) less than 5 min, (b) 5–10 min, (c) 11–15 min.