Does usage of domestic heating influence internal environmental conditions and health?

Effects of Housing Deprivation on Health: Empirical Evidence from Spain

Severe housing deprivation rates in Spain have tripled in just four years, affecting 3.4% of the population in 2020, with a higher incidence among the low-income population (9.2%). Despite the social aspect of the problem, minimal research has been carried out in Spain on the effects that the various forms of housing deprivation have on health. This study analyzes the impact of housing deprivation on health outcomes, with the objective of achieving results that facilitate the creation of improved public policies. Microdata are used from the Living Conditions Survey carried out by the National Institute of Statistics for the period 2009-2019, and several multilevel logistic regression models are presented to control for possible regional differences. The results show that the elements with the greatest effect on objective health are noise, leaks and harmful temperatures in housing. In addition, environmental factors, such as pollution, neighborhood crime and the number of units in a given apartment building, can be added to the list. As a result, we conclude that there are certain structural and environmental elements in housing and the environment in which is located that have a more intense impact on objective health and on the subjective perception of a person's state of health.

The impact of persistent poor housing conditions on mental health: A longitudinal population-based study

Living with housing problems increases the risk of mental ill health. Housing problems tend to persist over time but little is known about the mental health consequences of living with persistent housing problems. We investigated if persistence of poor housing affects mental health over and above the effect of current housing conditions. We used data from 13 annual waves of the British Household Panel Survey (1996 to 2008) (81,745 person/year observations from 16,234 individuals) and measured the persistence of housing problems by the number of years in the previous four that a household experienced housing problems. OLS regression models and lagged-change regression models were used to estimate the effects of past and current housing conditions on mental health, as measured by the General Health Questionnaire. Interaction terms tested if tenure type modified the impact of persistent poor housing on mental health. In fully adjusted models, mental health worsened as the persistence of housing problems increased. Adjustment for current housing conditions attenuated, but did not explain, the findings. Tenure type moderated the effects of persistent poor housing on mental health, suggesting that those who own their homes outright and those who live in social housing are most negatively affected. Persistence of poor housing was predictive of worse mental health, irrespective of current housing conditions, which added to the weight of evidence that demonstrates that living in poor quality housing for extended periods of time has negative consequences for mental health.

Housing improvements for health and associated socio-economic outcomes

BACKGROUND

The well established links between poor housing and poor health indicate that housing improvement may be an important mechanism through which public investment can lead to health improvement. Intervention studies which have assessed the health impacts of housing improvements are an important data resource to test assumptions about the potential for health improvement. Evaluations may not detect long term health impacts due to limited follow-up periods. Impacts on socio-economic determinants of health may be a valuable proxy indication of the potential for longer term health impacts.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the health and social impacts on residents following improvements to the physical fabric of housing.

SEARCH METHODS

Twenty seven academic and grey literature bibliographic databases were searched for housing intervention studies from 1887 to July 2012 (ASSIA; Avery Index; CAB Abstracts; The Campbell Library; CINAHL; The Cochrane Library; COPAC; DH-DATA: Health Admin; EMBASE; Geobase; Global Health; IBSS; ICONDA; MEDLINE; MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations; NTIS; PAIS; PLANEX; PsycINFO; RIBA; SCIE; Sociological Abstracts; Social Science Citations Index; Science Citations Index expanded; SIGLE; SPECTR). Twelve Scandinavian grey literature and policy databases (Libris; SveMed+; Libris uppsök; DIVA; Artikelsök; NORART; DEFF; AKF; DSI; SBI; Statens Institut for Folkesundhed; Social.dk) and 23 relevant websites were searched. In addition, a request to topic experts was issued for details of relevant studies. Searches were not restricted by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies which assessed change in any health outcome following housing improvement were included. This included experimental studies and uncontrolled studies. Cross-sectional studies were excluded as correlations are not able to shed light on changes in outcomes. Studies reporting only socio-economic outcomes or indirect measures of health, such as health service use, were excluded. All housing improvements which involved a physical improvement to the fabric of the house were included. Excluded interventions were improvements to mobile homes; modifications for mobility or medical reasons; air quality; lead removal; radon exposure reduction; allergen reduction or removal; and furniture or equipment. Where an improvement included one of these in addition to an included intervention the study was included in the review. Studies were not excluded on the basis of date, location, or language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies were independently screened and critically appraised by two review authors. Study quality was assessed using the risk of bias tool and the Hamilton tool to accommodate non-experimental and uncontrolled studies. Health and socio-economic impact data were extracted by one review author and checked by a second review author. Studies were grouped according to broad intervention categories, date, and context before synthesis. Where possible, standardized effect estimates were calculated and statistically pooled. Where meta-analysis was not appropriate the data were tabulated and synthesized narratively following a cross-study examination of reported impacts and study characteristics. Qualitative data were summarized using a logic model to map reported impacts and links to health impacts; quantitative data were incorporated into the model.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies which reported quantitative or qualitative data, or both, were included in the review. Thirty-three quantitative studies were identified. This included five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and 10 non-experimental studies of warmth improvements, 12 non-experimental studies of rehousing or retrofitting, three non-experimental studies of provision of basic improvements in low or mIddle Income countries (LMIC), and three non-experimental historical studies of rehousing from slums. Fourteen quantitative studies (42.4%) were assessed to be poor quality and were not included in the synthesis. Twelve studies reporting qualitative data were identified. These were studies of warmth improvements (n = 7) and rehousing (n = 5). Three qualitative studies were excluded from the synthesis due to lack of clarity of methods. Six of the included qualitative studies also reported quantitative data which was included in the review.Very little quantitative synthesis was possible as the data were not amenable to meta-analysis. This was largely due to extreme heterogeneity both methodologically as well as because of variations in the intervention, samples, context, and outcome; these variations remained even following grouping of interventions and outcomes. In addition, few studies reported data that were amenable to calculation of standardized effect sizes. The data were synthesised narratively.Data from studies of warmth and energy efficiency interventions suggested that improvements in general health, respiratory health, and mental health are possible. Studies which targeted those with inadequate warmth and existing chronic respiratory disease were most likely to report health improvement. Impacts following housing-led neighbourhood renewal were less clear; these interventions targeted areas rather than individual households in most need. Two poorer quality LMIC studies reported unclear or small health improvements. One better quality study of rehousing from slums (pre-1960) reported some improvement in mental health. There were few reports of adverse health impacts following housing improvement. A small number of studies gathered data on social and socio-economic impacts associated with housing improvement. Warmth improvements were associated with increased usable space, increased privacy, and improved social relationships; absences from work or school due to illness were also reduced.Very few studies reported differential impacts relevant to equity issues, and what data were reported were not amenable to synthesis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Housing investment which improves thermal comfort in the home can lead to health improvements, especially where the improvements are targeted at those with inadequate warmth and those with chronic respiratory disease. The health impacts of programmes which deliver improvements across areas and do not target according to levels of individual need were less clear, but reported impacts at an area level may conceal health improvements for those with the greatest potential to benefit. Best available evidence indicates that housing which is an appropriate size for the householders and is affordable to heat is linked to improved health and may promote improved social relationships within and beyond the household. In addition, there is some suggestion that provision of adequate, affordable warmth may reduce absences from school or work.While many of the interventions were targeted at low income groups, a near absence of reporting differential impacts prevented analysis of the potential for housing improvement to impact on social and economic inequalities.

Warm homes for older people: aims and methods of a randomised community-based trial for people with COPD

Background

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is of increasing importance with about one in four people estimated to be diagnosed with COPD during their lifetime. None of the existing medications for COPD has been shown to have much effect on the long-term decline in lung function and there have been few recent pharmacotherapeutic advances. Identifying preventive interventions that can reduce the frequency and severity of exacerbations could have important public health benefits. The Warm Homes for Elder New Zealanders study is a community-based trial, designed to test whether a NZ$500 electricity voucher paid into the electricity account of older people with COPD, with the expressed aim of enabling them to keep their homes warm, results in reduced exacerbations and hospitalisation rates. It will also examine whether these subsidies are cost-beneficial.

Methods

Participants had a clinician diagnosis of COPD and had either been hospitalised or taken steroids or antibiotics for COPD in the previous three years; their median age was 71 years. Participants were recruited from three communities between 2009 to early 2011. Where possible, participants’ houses were retrofitted with insulation. After baseline data were received, participants were randomised to either ‘early’ or ‘late’ intervention groups. The intervention was a voucher of $500 directly credited to the participants’ electricity company account. Early group participants received the voucher the first winter they were enrolled in the study, late participants during the second winter. Objective measures included spirometry and indoor temperatures and subjective measures included questions about participant health and wellbeing, heating, medication and visits to health professionals. Objective health care usage data included hospitalisation and primary care visits. Assessments of electricity use were obtained through electricity companies using unique customer numbers.

Discussion

This community trial has successfully enrolled 522 older people with COPD. Baseline data showed that, despite having a chronic respiratory illness, participants are frequently cold in their houses and economise on heating.

Trial Registration

The clinical trial registration is http://NCT01627418

Improving health and energy efficiency through community-based housing interventions

OBJECTIVES

Houses designed for one climate and cultural group may not be appropriate for other places and people. Our aim is to find cost-effective ways to improve the characteristics of older homes, ill-fitted for New Zealand's climate, in order to improve the occupants' health.

METHOD

We have carried out two community randomised trials, in partnership with local communities, which have focused on retrofitted insulation and more effective heating and have two other studies under way, one which focuses on electricity vouchers and the other on housing hazard remediation.

RESULTS

The Housing, Insulation and Health Study showed that insulating 1,350 houses, built before insulation was required, improved the occupants' health and well being as well as household energy efficiency. In the Housing, Heating and Health Study we investigated the impact of installing more effective heating in insulated houses for 409 households, where there was a child with doctor-diagnosed asthma. Again, the study showed significant results in the intervention group; indoor temperatures increased and levels of NO(2) were halved. Children reported less poor health, lower levels of asthma symptoms and sleep disturbances by wheeze and dry cough. Children also had fewer days off school.

CONCLUSION

Improving the energy efficiency of older housing leads to health improvements and energy efficiency improvements. Multidisciplinary studies of housing interventions can create compelling evidence to support policies for sustainable housing developments which improve health.

Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: household energy

Energy used in dwellings is an important target for actions to avert climate change. Properly designed and implemented, such actions could have major co-benefits for public health. To investigate, we examined the effect of hypothetical strategies to improve energy efficiency in UK housing stock and to introduce 150 million low-emission household cookstoves in India. Methods similar to those of WHO's Comparative Risk Assessment exercise were applied to assess the effect on health that changes in the indoor environment could have. For UK housing, the magnitude and even direction of the changes in health depended on details of the intervention, but interventions were generally beneficial for health. For a strategy of combined fabric, ventilation, fuel switching, and behavioural changes, we estimated 850 fewer disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), and a saving of 0.6 megatonnes of carbon dioxide (CO(2)), per million population in 1 year (on the basis of calculations comparing the health of the 2010 population with and without the specified outcome measures). The cookstove programme in India showed substantial benefits for acute lower respiratory infection in children, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and ischaemic heart disease. Calculated on a similar basis to the UK case study, the avoided burden of these outcomes was estimated to be 12 500 fewer DALYs and a saving of 0.1-0.2 megatonnes CO(2)-equivalent per million population in 1 year, mostly in short-lived greenhouse pollutants. Household energy interventions have potential for important co-benefits in pursuit of health and climate goals.

Are fuel poverty reduction schemes associated with decreased excess winter mortality in elders? A case study from London, U.K

The London Borough of Newham, London piloted the Warm Zone, a government-led fuel poverty reduction scheme. Fuel poverty is often cited as a factor in excess winter mortality (EWM) in the U.K. This study reported in this paper assessed whether EWM decreased for people aged > or =65 years in Newham as compared to all London, employing data from before and throughout the duration of the Warm Zone project. The paper also discusses the difficulties surrounding the measurement and interpretation of health impact relating to fuel poverty. We calculated and compared the yearly EWM indices for people aged > or =65 years for all of London, and for Newham over 12 years (1993-2005). The yearly EWM ratio for Newham in relation to all London was then calculated and compared. No definitive evidence to support the effect of the War Zone on EMW were noted. Relationships between EWM and fewer poverty reduction schemes are difficult to interpret, as many factors are entangled. These include cold strain and biological, genetic, gender, physiological, thermoregulation, environmental, meteorological, socio-economic, healthcare provision/expenditure, lifestyle and co-morbidity aspects, besides the challenges of sample sizes and whether other fuel poverty reduction schemes were simultaneously in operation. Those in privately owned housing might be ;masked' (underestimated) in their vulnerability to fuel poverty. Redefining the specific criteria for eligibility for fuel poverty grants and tackling heat inefficiency in privately owned homes not eligible for home heating improvement despite fulfilling other criteria for vulnerability requires attention. The implications are discussed.

Effects of improved home heating on asthma in community dwelling children: randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether non-polluting, more effective home heating (heat pump, wood pellet burner, flued gas) has a positive effect on the health of children with asthma.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Households in five communities in New Zealand.

PARTICIPANTS

409 children aged 6-12 years with doctor diagnosed asthma.

INTERVENTIONS

Installation of a non-polluting, more effective home heater before winter. The control group received a replacement heater at the end of the trial.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was change in lung function (peak expiratory flow rate and forced expiratory volume in one second, FEV(1)). Secondary outcomes were child reported respiratory tract symptoms and daily use of preventer and reliever drugs. At the end of winter 2005 (baseline) and winter 2006 (follow-up) parents reported their child's general health, use of health services, overall respiratory health, and housing conditions. Nitrogen dioxide levels were measured monthly for four months and temperatures in the living room and child's bedroom were recorded hourly.

RESULTS

Improvements in lung function were not significant (difference in mean FEV(1) 130.7 ml, 95% confidence interval -20.3 to 281.7). Compared with children in the control group, however, children in the intervention group had 1.80 fewer days off school (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 3.13), 0.40 fewer visits to a doctor for asthma (0.11 to 0.62), and 0.25 fewer visits to a pharmacist for asthma (0.09 to 0.32). Children in the intervention group also had fewer reports of poor health (adjusted odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.74), less sleep disturbed by wheezing (0.55, 0.35 to 0.85), less dry cough at night (0.52, 0.32 to 0.83), and reduced scores for lower respiratory tract symptoms (0.77, 0.73 to 0.81) than children in the control group. The intervention was associated with a mean temperature rise in the living room of 1.10 degrees C (95% confidence interval 0.54 degrees C to 1.64 degrees C) and in the child's bedroom of 0.57 degrees C (0.05 degrees C to 1.08 degrees C). Lower levels of nitrogen dioxide were measured in the living rooms of the intervention households than in those of the control households (geometric mean 8.5 microg/m(3) v 15.7 microg/m(3), P<0.001). A similar effect was found in the children's bedrooms (7.3 microg/m(3) v 10.9 microg/m(3), P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Installing non-polluting, more effective heating in the homes of children with asthma did not significantly improve lung function but did significantly reduce symptoms of asthma, days off school, healthcare utilisation, and visits to a pharmacist.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials NCT00489762.

Home warmth and health status of COPD patients

BACKGROUND

Home Energy Efficiency guidelines recommend domestic indoor temperatures of 21 degrees C for at least 9 h per day in living areas. Is health status of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) associated with maintaining this level of warmth in their homes?

METHODS

In a cross-sectional observational study of patients, living in their own homes, living room (LR) and bedroom (BR) temperatures were measured at 30 min intervals over 1 week using electronic dataloggers. Health status was measured with the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and EuroQol: EQ VAS. Outdoor temperatures were provided by Met Office.

RESULTS

One hundred and forty eight patients consented to temperature monitoring. Patients' mean age was 69 (SD 8.5) years, 67 (45%) male, mean percentage of predicted Forced Expiratory Volume in one second (FEV(1)) 41.7 (SD 17.4). Fifty-eight (39%) were current smokers. Independent of age, lung function, smoking and outdoor temperatures, poorer respiratory health status was significantly associated (P = 0.01) with fewer days with 9 h of warmth at 21 degrees C in the LR. A sub analysis showed that patients who smoked experienced more health effects than non-smokers (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Maintaining the warmth guideline of 21 degrees C in living areas for at least 9 h per day was associated with better health status for COPD patients. Patients who were continuing smokers were more vulnerable to reduction in warmth.

Housing and health

Heating improvements may hold most promise for developing healthy housing policy