China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Future Directions for Quantitative Health Risk Analysis
Published in Samuel C. Morris, Cancer Risk Assessment, 2020
Quantitative risk assessments have tended to present either abstract individual risk levels (e.g., lifetime increase in cancer risk) or “body counts” (increased number of cancers expected annually in the population). Although occasionally making for a good headline, these have never proved to be a satisfactory way to communicate meaningful information on risk to decisionmakers to the public. Benefit/cost analysis has always been viewed with suspicion because of the need to express health effects in monetary terms. Quantitative health risk assessment aims to aid decisionmaking. The ultimate decisionmaking instrument is the budget (Wildavsky, 1964). Cost-effectiveness has increasingly become recognized as a powerful way to express health risk in terms that make sense when developing a budget.
An Introduction to Risk Assessment with a Nod to History
Published in Ted W. Simon, Environmental Risk Assessment, 2019
Working under the aegis of the World Health Organization, the idea of “integrated risk assessment” was developed. The goal was to apply the science of risk analysis to bring together the disciplines and practice of ecological and human health risk assessment. WHO defined integrated risk assessment as “a science-based approach that combines the processes of risk estimation for humans, biota and natural resources in one assessment.”128 The process was then tested and refined based on four case studies.129
Future Directions of Health Promotion: Role of the Physician
Published in James M. Rippe, Lifestyle Medicine, 2019
To evolve, the field of health promotion must embrace a new set of measures and metrics for success and apply better methods for measuring the impact of initiatives. Although sometimes hotly debated, the more traditional indicator of a program’s value has been return on investment (ROI). However, an improved understanding of what works best and for who is dependent upon better measures of the overall value of more comprehensive population-level strategies. This will require adopting a thoughtful framework for understanding the environmental and cultural factors that can influence all individuals across a population. It will also require a new set of metrics that help connect the dots between the environment and culture and the leading and lagging indicators of the impact on health and well-being. To c arry the field forward, program planners should continuously assess the support for health in their environments and cultures, track both participation and engagement in programs, and measure self-directed behavior change. The value of traditional health-risk assessments can be improved by adding measures of positive outlook (e.g., resilience, optimism, perceived control) and by regularly measuring changes in these important precursors to health. Advances in technology make it possible to more frequently monitor and report on these and other important outcomes with minimal burden on the population.
Hydrogeochemical characterization, multi-exposure deterministic and probabilistic health hazard evaluation in groundwater in parts of Northern India
Published in Toxin Reviews, 2023
Herojeet Rajkumar, Pradeep K. Naik, Gagandeep Singh, Madhuri Rishi
In this study, deterministic and probabilistic risk analysis methods are employed to ascertain the uncertainty and sensitivity of health risk assessment. The deterministic approach used the simple mathematical formula recommended by USEPA, where the input variables are fixed values for different exposure routes (Lin et al.2016). The output risk results generated from this method are only point or single value that neglects the quantitative variability and uncertainty in the applied model's input variables (USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) 1997, Rajasekhar et al.2018). Therefore, the deterministic approach of HHRA cannot cater to the absolute or holistic scenario of risk assessment for the inclusive member of population interest due to differences in person-to-person characteristics and dynamism prevailing in the environment. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1997) suggested probabilistic techniques as an alternative and viable statistical application offering a sound methodology and new research dimension that provides more credible information and authentic scientific output for the risk analysis.
The effect of the Ambulatory Integration of the Medical and Social (AIMS) model on health risk and depression
Published in Social Work in Health Care, 2022
Victoria M. Rizzo, Jeannine M. Rowe, Woojae Han, Suk-Young Kang, Bonnie Ewald, Steven K. Rothschild, Robyn Golden
Health risk was assessed using the Health Risk Assessment (HRA), an evidence-informed 20-item measure developed by a formal provider collaborative working to improve the health of Medicaid recipients to identify high risk patients in medical home settings in the Midwestern U.S. The tool assesses twelve addressable psychosocial risk factors and includes questions about medical care history and transportation to access health care, general health and health history, mental health and substance use, and social supports and needs (Jones et al., 2017). The measure is scored using a three-tier severity rating: high intensity, medium intensity, and low intensity. A high intensity score is assigned to participants who have one or more hospitalizations within the past 12 months or any 30-day readmission and six or more physical health conditions or self-identified psychosocial risk factors. A medium intensity score is assigned to participants who have three or more ED visits in the past six months and four to five physical health conditions or self-identified psychosocial risk factors. A low intensity score is assigned to participants who have zero to three physical health conditions or self-identified psychosocial risk factors. Note that the HRA did not indicate which of these intensity scores aligns with “rising risk.”
Comparing formaldehyde risk assessment in histopathology laboratory staff using three methods based on US EPA approaches in the west of Iran
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2022
Azam Karami Mosafer, Elnaz Taheri, Abdulrahman Bahrami, Seyed Mohammad Zolhavarieh, Mohammad Javad Assari
In this study, risk assessment was performed using three EPA methods. Investigations have shown that all three methods are suitable for carcinogenic risk assessment of formaldehyde. Meanwhile, the RAIS method is more suitable for non-carcinogenic risk assessment due to the consideration of several factors such as the duration, frequency and time of exposure. Also, this study emphasizes the necessity of creative planning engineering and administrative control measures based on effective parameters of risk and preventing the creation of adverse health effects in hospital histopathology laboratory staff. One of the limitations of health risk assessment methods is that they are associated with uncertainty, which can be reduced or eliminated by developing new methods in future studies. Therefore, it is recommended that more extensive studies be conducted on risk assessment methods and efforts to improve them in the future.