Dataset Information

Associations between indoor environmental quality in schools and symptom reporting in pupil-administered questionnaires.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The associations between indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in homes and symptom reporting of children have been extensively studied, but only few large-scale studies have been done in schools. We examined associations between expert-assessed IEQ in schools and pupils' reporting of different symptoms, and whether associations were stronger if participants relate symptoms to the school environment. METHODS:The questionnaire survey was done in all primary and secondary schools in two areas of Helsinki, Finland. Primary school pupils (grade 3-6, n = 8775, 99 school-buildings) and secondary school pupils (grade 7-9, n = 3410, 30 school-buildings) reported their symptoms. Symptoms were combined into respiratory, lower respiratory, eye, skin, and general symptom groups. Surveys were also done among the parents of the primary school pupils (grade 1-6, n = 3540, 88 school buildings), but results are reported only in the supplement due to the low response rate (20% in 2017 and 13% in 2018). The associations between IEQ and symptoms were analyzed using multilevel logistic regression analysis. RESULTS:Several of the IEQ indicators were highly correlated and indicators were therefore mainly analyzed by combining them into a summary score and into latent classes. Dose-response associations were found between IEQ problems and higher reporting of respiratory and general symptoms among both primary and secondary school pupils. Some associations were also observed with lower respiratory and skin symptoms, but not with eye symptoms. The associations were somewhat stronger with symptoms related to the school environment compared to symptoms reported without such relation: for a unit change in IEQ summary score and respiratory symptoms in primary schools, odds ratios were 1.07 (95% CI 1.02-1.06) and 1.04 (95% CI 1.04-1.10), and in secondary schools 1.09 (95% CI 1.01-1.09) and 1.05 (95% CI 1.02-1.17), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Expert-assessed IEQ problems in schools were associated with increased reporting of especially respiratory and general symptoms. The associations were only somewhat stronger in magnitude for symptoms reported in relation to the school environment compared to symptoms reported without such relation.

SUBMITTER: Savelieva K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6935098 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesPoor indoor environmental quality (IEQ) in schools is related to higher respiratory symptoms of pupils, but little is known about the importance of other factors. This study examined the associations between different psychosocial factors and other pupils' individual and allergic characteristics, beyond school IEQ, and reporting of respiratory symptoms in pupil-administered and parent-administered questionnaires.SettingAll primary and secondary schools in two areas of Helsinki, Finland.ParticipantsPrimary school pupils (grade 3-6, n=8775, 99 school buildings) and secondary school pupils (grade 7-9, n=3410, 30 school buildings) reported their respiratory symptoms, as well as psychosocial factors and individual characteristics. Parents of primary school pupils (grade 1-6, n=3540, 88 school buildings) also filled in questionnaires, but the response rate was low (20% in 2017 and 13% in 2018).Main outcome measureRespiratory symptoms were reported in relation to the school environment and in general (without such relation) by pupils or parents.ResultsWorry about IEQ and low school satisfaction, and asthma and hay fever were related to higher reporting of respiratory symptoms in three samples. The variance between schools in respiratory symptoms was low (intraclass correlation=0.6%-2.4%). Psychosocial factors, especially worry about school's IEQ, explained more of the variance between schools in symptoms than IEQ among secondary school pupils and parents, but not among primary school pupils for symptoms in general. Worry about IEQ also modified the associations between IEQ and respiratory symptoms, but only in parental reports.ConclusionIn addition to IEQ, psychosocial factors and pupils' individual and allergic characteristics were related to higher reporting of respiratory symptoms in all three samples. Psychosocial factors explained more variance between schools than IEQ, although it was 2.4% at most. Other factors beyond IEQ should be considered when interpreting symptom reporting in indoor air questionnaires.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Exposure to poor environmental conditions has been associated with deterioration of physical and mental health, and with reduction of cognitive performance. Environmental conditions may also influence cognitive development of children, but epidemiological evidence is scant. In developed countries, children spend 930 hours per year in a classroom, second only to time spent in their bedroom. Using continuous sensing technology, we investigate the relationship between indoor environmental quality (IEQ) and cognitive performance of school-aged children. The proposed study will result in a better understanding of the effects of environmental characteristics on cognitive performance, thereby paving the way for experimental studies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A study protocol is presented to reliably measure IEQ in schools. We will monitor the IEQ of 280 classrooms for 5 years, covering approximately 10 000 children. Each classroom in the sample is permanently equipped with a sensor measuring air quality (carbon dioxide and coarse particles), temperature, relative humidity, light intensity and noise levels, all at 1 min intervals. The location of sensing equipment within and across rooms has been validated by a pilot study. Academic performance of school-aged children is measured through standardised cognitive tests. In addition, a series of health indicators is collected (eg, school absence and demand for healthcare), together with an extensive set of sociodemographic characteristics (eg, parental income, education, occupational status). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Medical Ethical Approval for the current study was waived by the Medical Ethical Committee azM/UM (METC 2018-0681). In addition, data on student performance and health stems from an already existing data infrastructure that are granted with ethical approval by the Ethical Review Committee Inner City faculties (ERCIC_092_12_07_2018). Health data are obtained from the 'The Healthy Primary School of the Future' (HPSF) project. Medical Ethical Approval for HPSF was waived by the Medical Ethical Committee of Zuyderland, Heerlen (METC 14 N-142). The HPSF study protocol was registered in the database ClinicalTrials.gov on 14-06-2016 with reference number NCT02800616, this study is currently in the Results stage. Data collection from Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdienst Zuid-Limburg (GGD-ZL) is executed by researchers of HPSF, this procedure has been fully approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of Zuyderland. The questionnaires on level of comfort will be filled in anonymously by students and teachers. The study will follow the EU General Data Protection Regulation (EU GDPR) and Dutch data protection law to ensure protection of personal data, as well as maintain proper data management and anonymisation.The protocol discussed in this paper includes significant efforts focused on integrating results and making them available to both the scientific community and the wider public, including policy makers. The results will lead to multiple scientific articles that will be disseminated through peer-reviewed international journals, as well as through conference presentations. In addition, we will exploit ongoing collaboration with project stakeholders and project partners to disseminate information to the target audience. For example, the results will be presented to school boards in the Netherlands, through engagement with the Coalition for Green Schools, as well as to school boards in USA, through engagement with the Center for Green Schools. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02800616; Results.

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the effect of routinely administered psychiatric questionnaires on the recognition, management, and outcome of psychiatric disorders in non-psychiatric settings.Data sourcesEmbase, Medline, PsycLIT, Cinahl, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and hand searches of key journals.MethodsA systematic review of randomised controlled trials of the administration and routine feedback of psychiatric screening and outcome questionnaires to clinicians in non-psychiatric settings. Narrative overview of key design features and end points, together with a random effects quantitative synthesis of comparable studies.Main outcome measuresRecognition of psychiatric disorders after feedback of questionnaire results; interventions for psychiatric disorders; and outcome of psychiatric disorders.ResultsNine randomised studies were identified that examined the use of common psychiatric instruments in primary care and general hospital settings. Studies compared the effect of the administration of these instruments followed by the feedback of the results to clinicians, with administration with no feedback. Meta-analytic pooling was possible for four of these studies (2457 participants), which measured the effect of feedback on the recognition of depressive disorders. Routine administration and feedback of scores for all patients (irrespective of score) did not increase the overall rate of recognition of mental disorders such as anxiety and depression (relative risk of detection of depression by clinician after feedback 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.09). Two studies showed that routine administration followed by selective feedback for only high scorers increased the rate of recognition of depression (relative risk of detection of depression after feedback 2.64, 1.62 to 4.31). This increased recognition, however, did not translate into an increased rate of intervention. Overall, studies of routine administration of psychiatric measures did not show an effect on patient outcome.ConclusionsThe routine measurement of outcome is a costly exercise. Little evidence shows that it is of benefit in improving psychosocial outcomes of those with psychiatric disorder managed in non-psychiatric settings.

Dataset Information

Associations between indoor environmental quality in schools and symptom reporting in pupil-administered questionnaires.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets