4.5 Article

Dampness and mould in schools and respiratory symptoms in children: the HITEA study

期刊

OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
卷 70, 期 10, 页码 681-687

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/oemed-2012-101286

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Commission as part of HITEA (Health Effects of Indoor Pollutants: Integrating Microbial, Toxicological and Epidemiological Approaches) [211488]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The adverse respiratory health effects of dampness and mould in the home have been extensively reported, but few studies have evaluated the health effects of such exposures in schools. Objectives To assess the associations between dampness and mould in school buildings and respiratory symptoms among 6-12-year-old pupils in three European countries with different climates. Methods Based on information from self-reports and observations, we selected 29 primary schools with and 27 without moisture damage in Spain, the Netherlands and Finland. Information on respiratory symptoms and potential determinants was obtained using a parent-administered questionnaire among 6-12-year-old pupils. Country-specific associations between moisture damage and respiratory symptoms were evaluated using multivariable multilevel mixed effects logistic regression analysis. Results Data from 9271 children were obtained. Nocturnal dry cough was consistently associated with moisture damage at school in each of the three countries: OR 1.15; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.30 with p for heterogeneity 0.54. Finnish children attending a moisture damaged school more often had wheeze (OR 1.36; CI 1.04 to 1.78), nasal symptoms (OR 1.34; CI 1.05 to 1.71) and respiratory-related school absence (OR 1.50; CI 1.10 to 2.03). No associations with these symptoms were found in the Netherlands or Spain (p for heterogeneity < 0.05). Conclusions Moisture damage in schools may have adverse respiratory health effects in pupils. Finnish school children seem to be at higher risk, possibly due to quantitative and/or qualitative differences in exposure.

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

4.5
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