背景:尽管关于动物饲养操作(AFO)包括集中动物饲养操作(CAFO)的文献越来越多,关于不成比例的暴露和相关健康负担的研究相对有限,并且没有定论。
目的:我们系统回顾了以前关于AFOs/CAFOs的文献,专注于暴露评估,相关的健康结果,以及与环境正义(EJ)和潜在弱势群体相关的变量。
方法:我们对数据库(MEDLINE/PubMed和WebofScience)进行了系统搜索,并进行了引文筛选。标题筛选,摘要,全文文章和数据提取由成对的审稿人独立进行。我们总结了每项研究的信息(即,研究地点,学习期间,研究人群,研究类型,研究设计,统计方法,和调整后的变量(如果检查了健康关联),和主要发现),AFO/CAFO特性和暴露评估(即,动物类型,数据源,暴露量,和暴露评估),健康结果或症状(如果检查了健康关联),以及与EJ和潜在脆弱人群相关的信息(与暴露和/或健康关联有关,考虑到弱势群体,相关变量,以及与EJ和弱势群体相关的主要发现)。
结果:经过10,963篇论文的初步筛选,我们确定了76项符合条件的研究.这篇综述发现,相对较少数量的研究(20项研究)调查了与AFOs/CAFOs暴露和/或相关健康结果相关的EJ和脆弱性问题(例如,呼吸道疾病/症状,感染)。我们发现了不同研究结果的差异,人口,这些指标用于AFO/CAFO暴露评估,以及与EJ和漏洞相关的变量。AFO/CAFO暴露评估最常用的指标是设施或动物的存在或接近。与差异有关的调查最多的变量是种族/民族和社会经济地位。
结论:本综述的研究结果提供了暗示性证据,表明与AFO/CAFO暴露相关的一些暴露和/或健康反应较高的亚群存在差异,尽管研究结果各不相同。
BACKGROUND: Despite growing literature on animal feeding operations (AFOs) including concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), research on disproportionate exposure and associated
health burden is relatively limited and shows inconclusive findings.
OBJECTIVE: We systematically reviewed previous literature on AFOs/CAFOs, focusing on exposure assessment, associated
health outcomes, and variables related to environmental justice (EJ) and potentially vulnerable populations.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of databases (MEDLINE/PubMed and Web of Science) and performed citation screening. Screening of titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and data extraction were performed independently by pairs of reviewers. We summarized information for each study (i.e., study location, study period, study population, study type, study design, statistical methods, and adjusted variables (if health association was examined), and main findings), AFO/CAFO characteristics and exposure assessment (i.e., animal type, data source, measure of exposure, and exposure assessment), health outcomes or symptoms (if health association was examined), and information related to EJ and potentially vulnerable populations (in relation to exposure and/or health associations, vulnerable populations considered, related variables, and main findings in relation to EJ and vulnerable populations).
RESULTS: After initial screening of 10,963 papers, we identified 76 eligible studies. This
review found that a relatively small number of studies (20 studies) investigated EJ and vulnerability issues related to AFOs/CAFOs exposure and/or associated
health outcomes (e.g., respiratory diseases/symptoms, infections). We found differences in findings across studies, populations, the metrics used for AFO/CAFO exposure assessment, and variables related to EJ and vulnerability. The most commonly used metric for AFO/CAFO exposure assessment was presence of or proximity to facilities or animals. The most investigated variables related to disparities were race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this
review provide suggestive evidence that disparities exist with some subpopulations having higher exposure and/or health response in relation to AFO/CAFO exposure, although results varied across studies.