4.7 Article

Associations between grass and weed pollen and emergency department visits for asthma among children in Montreal

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH
Volume 106, Issue 2, Pages 203-211

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2007.10.005

Keywords

pediatric asthma; pollen; epidemiology; time-series studies; climate change

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context and objective: Asthma among children is a major public health problem worldwide. There are increasing number of studies suggesting a possible association between allergenic pollen and exacerbations of asthma. In the context of global climate change, a number of future climate and air pollution scenarios predict increases in concentrations of pollen, an extension of the pollen season, and an increase in the allergenicity of pollen. The goal of the present study is to evaluate the short-term effects of exposure to grass and weed pollen on emergency department visits and readmissions for asthma among children aged 0-9 years living in Montreal between April and October, 1994-2004. Methodology and results: Time-series analyses were carried out using parametric log-linear overdispersed Poisson models that were adjusted for temporal variations, daily weather conditions (temperature, atmospheric pressure), and gaseous air pollutants (ozone and nitrogen dioxide). We have found positive associations between emergency department visits and concentrations of grass pollen 3 days after exposure. The effect of grass pollen was higher on emergency department readmissions as compared to initial visits. Weak negative associations were found between weed pollen (including ragweed pollen) and emergency department visits 2 days after exposure. Conclusion: The data indicate that among children, emergency department visits increased with increasing concentrations of grass pollen. (c) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available