4.6 Article

Home dampness, childhood asthma, hay fever, and airway symptoms in Shanghai, China: associations, dose-response relationships, and lifestyle's influences

期刊

INDOOR AIR
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 450-463

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ina.12104

关键词

Asthma; Rhinitis; Dampness; Home; Preschool children; Attributable risk

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51108263, 51278302]
  2. Leading Academic Discipline Project of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission [J50502]
  3. Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission [14ZZ132]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Numerous studies of associations between dampness and respiratory diseases have been conducted, but their implications remain inconclusive. In this study of 13,335 parent-reported questionnaires (response rate: 85.3%), we analyzed associations between home dampness and asthma and related symptoms in 4- to 6-year-old children in a cross-sectional study of Shanghai. Indicators of home dampness were strongly and significantly associated with dry cough, wheeze, and rhinitis symptoms. In the current residence, children with visible mold spots (VMS) exposure had 32% higher risk of asthma (adjusted OR, 95% CI: 1.32, 1.07-1.64); damp clothing and/or bedding (frequently) was strongly associated with dry cough (1.78, 1.37-2.30); condensation on windows was strongly associated with hay fever (1.60, 1.27-2.01). In the early-life residence, VMS or damp stains (frequently) were strongly associated with dry cough (2.20, 1.55-3.11) and rhinitis ever (1.57, 1.11-2.21). Associations between dampness and diseases among children with or without family history of atopy were similar. The total number of dampness indicators had strong dose-response relationships with investigated health outcomes. Actions, including opening windows of the child's room at night and cleaning the child's room frequently, could potentially mitigate 25% of home VMS, thereby preventing more than 1.5% of attributable risk of the studied symptoms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据