A community-based intervention for low-income families to reduce children’s blood lead levels between 3–9.9 μg/Dl

Effectiveness of educational interventions for the prevention of lead poisoning in children: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Childhood exposure to lead has severe health consequences including long-term physical, behavioral, and learning problems. Lead poisoning often occurs in the home and persists as a form of environmental injustice, disparately impacting certain children based on factors such as socioeconomic status, immigration status, and race. Because abatement is costly, many prevention programs rely on educational interventions. We conducted a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of educational interventions on reducing blood lead levels (BLL) in children.

CONTENT

Following PRISMA-P guidelines, a librarian-guided search strategy incorporated database-specific subject headings and keywords related to lead poisoning and education, and encompassed four databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and CINAHL. Two reviewers screened the results for those that met inclusion criteria (original research, study population of children under 18 years, inclusion of an educational intervention, outcome of BLL).

SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK

We screened the titles of 2,062 non-duplicate studies, the abstracts of 78 studies, and full texts of 23 articles, resulting in 17 articles that met eligibility criteria. Thirteen studies used multi-pronged interventions, which precluded comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of the educational component. Interventions that had success in lowering BLL included some notable elements: longevity of intervention, consideration of culture and ethnicity; use of a community or home-based approach; and provision of supplies or assistance with cleaning. Of the four of studies that used solely educational interventions, three were successful in reducing BLL. Among the 12 studies that used a control group, six found their interventions to be successful in reducing BLL. This review found that educational interventions, either alone or as part of a multi-pronged approach, do not consistently reduce BLL in children. However, educational interventions may decrease severity of lead poisoning in children when more robust interventions are not feasible.

Parenting and Lead Mitigation at Home: A Multifaceted Community Partnership Model Promoting Parent Engagement in Lead Exposure Prevention

Young children are at high risk of lead poisoning, which can damage early cognitive and behavioral development and have long-lasting impacts. Home environments are persistent sources of exposure for children in urban, low-income settings. Community-academic partnerships are essential for public health intervention strategies addressing residential household lead exposure, yet community organization staff and home visitors often experience strain and burnout. We describe Parenting and Lead Mitigation at Home, a multifaceted partnership project to (a) develop and implement a community-based, peer-delivered education program for parents of young children in neighborhoods at risk for home lead exposure and (b) support the home visitors delivering programming. We developed, delivered, and initially evaluated Lead 101, a lead-exposure prevention curriculum informed by the Community Organizing and Family Issues (COFI) model. The goals were to educate parents around lead exposure risks and empower parents to reduce their child's risk. We developed a novel Reflective Practice pilot curriculum designed to provide emotional support to peer educators and community organization staff who delivered home-based programming. We trained 11 peer educators who delivered Lead 101 to 62 families. We pilot-tested the Reflective Practice curriculum with five community organization staff. The implementation process and pilot evaluation data suggest increased parent knowledge and self-efficacy regarding mitigation of home-based lead hazards, and high satisfaction with reflective practice. Using this model to develop multifaceted partnerships among universities, community-based organizations, and focal communities may facilitate community-engaged program development for families and systematic support for individuals working directly with families, thereby indirectly promoting child health and well-being.

Preliminary Study of Lead-Contaminated Drinking Water in Public Parks-An Assessment of Equity and Exposure Risks in Two Texas Communities

Safe drinking water is celebrated as a public health achievement and is a top priority for the Environmental Protection Agency. Yet today, lead (Pb) contaminated drinking water has the potential to be a public health crisis in the United States. Despite efforts to provide safe drinking water, update water infrastructure, and ensure strict drinking water regulations, there are incidents of unsafe lead levels and reports of associated adverse health effects. While there has been increased attention paid to the quality of drinking water within individuals’ homes, little research has examined the presence and concentration of lead in water from drinking fountain sources located in public parks. In this study, we sampled drinking water from every accessible public park in the Bryan/College Station (BCS), TX metropolitan area (N = 56). With a lower detection level of 2.0 μg/L, we discovered a mean lead concentration of 1.3 μg/L across all sites and a maximum of 8.0 μg/L. Furthermore, neighborhoods below the median income for BCS were twice as likely to have detectable lead levels in their water and had 1.5 times the mean concentration. This study underscores the need for action and supports previous studies that have identified a disparate burden to lead exposure among low socioeconomic populations within the United States. By examining the water quality in drinking fountains in publicly accessible parks, the results of our study provide public health professionals with important information about where infrastructure should be improved and the potential harms of lead in drinking fountain water.

Household interventions for secondary prevention of domestic lead exposure in children

BACKGROUND

Lead exposure is a serious health hazard, especially for children. It is associated with physical, cognitive and neurobehavioural impairment in children. There are many potential sources of lead in the environment, therefore trials have tested many household interventions to prevent or reduce lead exposure. This is an update of a previously published review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of household interventions intended to prevent or reduce further lead exposure in children on improvements in cognitive and neurobehavioural development, reductions in blood lead levels and reductions in household dust lead levels.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2020, we updated our searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 10 other databases and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched Google Scholar, checked the reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts to identify unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of household educational or environmental interventions, or combinations of interventions to prevent lead exposure in children (from birth to 18 years of age), where investigators reported at least one standardised outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently reviewed all eligible studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted trialists to obtain missing information. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 studies (three new to this update), involving 3282 children: 16 RCTs (involving 3204 children) and one quasi-RCT (involving 78 children). Children in all studies were under six years of age. Fifteen studies took place in urban areas of North America, one in Australia and one in China. Most studies were in areas with low socioeconomic status. Girls and boys were equally represented in those studies reporting this information. The duration of the intervention ranged from three months to 24 months in 15 studies, while two studies performed interventions on a single occasion. Follow-up periods ranged from three months to eight years. Three RCTs were at low risk of bias in all assessed domains. The other 14 studies were at unclear or high risk of bias; for example, we considered two RCTs and one quasi-RCT at high risk of selection bias and six RCTs at high risk of attrition bias. National or international research grants or governments funded 15 studies, while the other two did not report their funding sources. Education interventions versus no intervention None of the included studies in this comparison assessed effects on cognitive or neurobehavioural outcomes, or adverse events. All studies reported data on blood lead level outcomes. Educational interventions showed there was probably no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels (continuous: mean difference (MD) -0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 0.07; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 815 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; log-transformed data), or in reducing floor dust levels (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.24; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 318 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Environmental interventions versus no intervention Dust control: one study in this comparison reported data on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes, and on adverse events in children. The study showed numerically there may be better neurobehavioural outcomes in children of the intervention group. However, differences were small and the CI included both a beneficial and non-beneficial effect of the environmental intervention (e.g. mental development (Bayley Scales of Infant Development-II): MD 0.1, 95% CI -2.1 to 2.4; 1 study, 302 participants; low-certainty evidence). The same study did not observe any adverse events related to the intervention during the eight-year follow-up, but observed two children with adverse events in the control group (1 study, 355 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis also found no evidence of effectiveness on blood lead levels (continuous: MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.06; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 565 participants; moderate-certainty evidence; log-transformed data). We could not pool the data regarding floor dust levels, but studies reported that there may be no evidence of a difference between the groups (very low-certainty evidence). Soil abatement: the two studies assessing this environmental intervention only reported on the outcome of 'blood lead level'. One study showed a small effect on blood lead level reduction, while the other study showed no effect. Therefore, we deem the current evidence insufficient to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of soil abatement (very low-certainty evidence). Combination of educational and environmental interventions versus standard education Studies in this comparison only reported on blood lead levels and dust lead levels. We could not pool the studies in a meta-analysis due to substantial differences between the studies. Since the studies reported inconsistent results, the evidence is currently insufficient to clarify whether a combination of interventions reduces blood lead levels and floor dust levels (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on available evidence, household educational interventions and environmental interventions (namely dust control measures) show no evidence of a difference in reducing blood lead levels in children as a population health measure. The evidence of the effects of environmental interventions on cognitive and neurobehavioural outcomes and adverse events is uncertain too. Further trials are required to establish the most effective intervention for reducing or even preventing further lead exposure. Key elements of these trials should include strategies to reduce multiple sources of lead exposure simultaneously using empirical dust clearance levels. It is also necessary for trials to be carried out in low- and middle-income countries and in differing socioeconomic groups in high-income countries.

Screening for Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Children and Pregnant Women: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

IMPORTANCE

Elevated blood lead levels in children are associated with neurologic effects such as behavioral and learning problems, lower IQ, hyperactivity, hearing problems, and impaired growth. In pregnant women, lead exposure can impair organ systems such as the hematopoietic, hepatic, renal, and nervous systems, and increase the risk of preeclampsia and adverse perinatal outcomes. Many of the adverse health effects of lead exposure are irreversible.

OBJECTIVE

To update the 2006 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for elevated blood lead levels in children and pregnant women.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for and treatment of elevated blood lead levels. In this update, an elevated blood lead level was defined according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reference level of 5 μg/dL.

FINDINGS

The USPSTF found adequate evidence that questionnaires and other clinical prediction tools to identify asymptomatic children with elevated blood lead levels are inaccurate. The USPSTF found adequate evidence that capillary blood testing accurately identifies children with elevated blood lead levels. The USPSTF found inadequate evidence on the effectiveness of treatment of elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children 5 years and younger and in pregnant women. The USPSTF found inadequate evidence regarding the accuracy of questionnaires and other clinical prediction tools to identify asymptomatic pregnant women with elevated blood lead levels. The USPSTF found inadequate evidence on the harms of screening for or treatment of elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children and pregnant women. The USPSTF concluded that the current evidence is insufficient, and that the balance of benefits and harms of screening for elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children 5 years and younger and in pregnant women cannot be determined.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic children. (I statement) The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for elevated blood lead levels in asymptomatic pregnant persons. (I statement).