1
|
Hu A, Li R, Chen G, Chen S. Impact of Respiratory Dust on Health: A Comparison Based on the Toxicity of PM2.5, Silica, and Nanosilica. Int J Mol Sci 2024; 25:7654. [PMID: 39062897 PMCID: PMC11277548 DOI: 10.3390/ijms25147654] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2024] [Revised: 07/08/2024] [Accepted: 07/10/2024] [Indexed: 07/28/2024] Open
Abstract
Respiratory dust of different particle sizes in the environment causes diverse health effects when entering the human body and makes acute or chronic damage through multiple systems and organs. However, the precise toxic effects and potential mechanisms induced by dust of different particle sizes have not been systematically summarized. In this study, we described the sources and characteristics of three different particle sizes of dust: PM2.5 (<2.5 μm), silica (<5 μm), and nanosilica (<100 nm). Based on their respective characteristics, we further explored the main toxicity induced by silica, PM2.5, and nanosilica in vivo and in vitro. Furthermore, we evaluated the health implications of respiratory dust on the human body, and especially proposed potential synergistic effects, considering current studies. In summary, this review summarized the health hazards and toxic mechanisms associated with respiratory dust of different particle sizes. It could provide new insights for investigating the synergistic effects of co-exposure to respiratory dust of different particle sizes in mixed environments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Shi Chen
- Key Laboratory of Molecular Epidemiology of Hunan Province, Hunan Normal University, Changsha 410013, China; (A.H.); (R.L.); (G.C.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Bai J, Barandouzi ZA, Yeager KA, Graetz I, Gong C, Norman M, Hankins J, Paul S, Torres MA, Bruner DW. Analysis of travel burden and travel support among patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center in the Southeastern United States. Support Care Cancer 2024; 32:451. [PMID: 38907006 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-024-08656-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/03/2023] [Accepted: 06/13/2024] [Indexed: 06/23/2024]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Travel burden leads to worse cancer outcomes. Understanding travel burden and the level and types of travel support provided at large cancer centers is critical for developing systematic programs to alleviate travel burden. This study analyzed patients who received travel assistance, including their travel burden, types and amount of travel support received, and factors that influenced these outcomes. METHODS We analyzed 1063 patients who received travel support from 1/1/2021 to 5/1/2023 at Winship Cancer Institute, in which ~18,000 patients received cancer care annually. Travel burden was measured using distance and time to Winship sites from patients' residential address. Travel support was evaluated using the monetary value of total travel support and type of support received. Patients' sociodemographic and clinical factors were extracted from electronic medical records. Area-level socioeconomic disadvantage was coded by the Area Deprivation Index using patient ZIP codes. RESULTS On average, patients traveled 57.2 miles and 67.3 min for care and received $74.1 in total for travel support. Most patients (88.3%) received travel-related funds (e.g., gas cards), 5% received direct rides (e.g., Uber), 3.8% received vouchers for taxi or public transportation, and 3% received combined travel support. Male and White had longer travel distance and higher travel time than female and other races, respectively. Patients residing in more disadvantaged neighborhoods had an increased travel distance and travel time. Other races and Hispanics received more travel support ($) than Black and White patients or non-Hispanics. Patients with higher travel distance and travel time were more like to receive travel-related financial support. CONCLUSION Among patients who received travel support, those from socioeconomically disadvantaged neighborhoods had greater travel burden. Patients with greater travel burden were more likely to receive travel funds versus other types of support. Further understanding of the impact of travel burden and travel support on cancer outcomes is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jinbing Bai
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA.
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| | - Zahra A Barandouzi
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Katherine A Yeager
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Ilana Graetz
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Claire Gong
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Maria Norman
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - James Hankins
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Sudeshna Paul
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Mylin A Torres
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Deborah Watkins Bruner
- Nell Hodgson Woodruff School of Nursing, Emory University, 1520 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
- Department of Radiation Oncology, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Conley CC, Derry-Vick HM, Ahn J, Xia Y, Lin L, Graves KD, Pan W, Fall-Dickson JM, Reeve BB, Potosky AL. Relationship between area-level socioeconomic status and health-related quality of life among cancer survivors. JNCI Cancer Spectr 2024; 8:pkad109. [PMID: 38128004 PMCID: PMC10868382 DOI: 10.1093/jncics/pkad109] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2023] [Revised: 12/11/2023] [Accepted: 12/18/2023] [Indexed: 12/23/2023] Open
Abstract
Area-level socioeconomic status (SES) impacts cancer outcomes, such as stage at diagnosis, treatments received, and mortality. However, less is known about the relationship between area-level SES and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for cancer survivors. To assess the additive value of area-level SES data and the relative contribution of area- and individual-level SES for estimating cancer survivors' HRQOL, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from a population-based survey study of cancer survivors (the Measuring Your Health [MY-Health] Study). Multilevel multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the relationships between individual-level SES, area-level SES as measured by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Social Vulnerability Index, and HRQOL group membership (high, average, low, or very low HRQOL). Area-level SES did not significantly increase model estimation accuracy compared to models using only individual-level SES. However, area-level SES could be an appropriate proxy when the individual-level SES is missing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Claire C Conley
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Heather M Derry-Vick
- Cancer Prevention Precision Control Institute, Center for Discovery and Innovation, Hackensack Meridian Health, Nutley, NJ, USA
| | - Jaeil Ahn
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Yi Xia
- Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Li Lin
- Center for Health Measurement, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Kristi D Graves
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Wei Pan
- Health Statistics and Data Science Core, Duke University School of Nursing, Durham, NC, USA
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Jane M Fall-Dickson
- Georgetown University School of Nursing, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, USA
- Daniel K. Inouye Graduate School of Nursing, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | - Bryce B Reeve
- Center for Health Measurement, Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
- Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Arnold L Potosky
- Department of Oncology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|