| Title |
Improved stove interventions to reduce household air pollution in low and middle income countries: a descriptive systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-015-2024-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emma Thomas, Kremlin Wickramasinghe, Shanthi Mendis, Nia Roberts, Charlie Foster |
| Abstract |
Household air pollution (HAP) resulting from the use of solid fuels presents a major public health hazard. Improved stoves have been offered as a potential tool to reduce exposure to HAP and improve health outcomes. Systematic information on stove interventions is limited. We conducted a systematic review of the current evidence of improved stove interventions aimed at reducing HAP in real life settings. An extensive search of ten databases commenced in April 2014. In addition, we searched clinical trial registers and websites for unpublished studies and grey literature. Studies were included if they reported on an improved stove intervention aimed at reducing HAP resulting from solid fuel use in a low or middle-income country. The review identified 5,243 records. Of these, 258 abstracts and 57 full texts were reviewed and 36 studies identified which met the inclusion criteria. When well-designed, implemented and monitored, stove interventions can have positive effects. However, the impacts are unlikely to reduce pollutant levels to World Health Organization recommended levels. Additionally, many participants in the included studies continued to use traditional stoves either instead of, or in additional to, new improved options. Current evidence suggests improved stove interventions can reduce exposure to HAP resulting from solid fuel smoke. Studies with longer follow-up periods are required to assess if pollutant reductions reported in the current literature are sustained over time. Adoption of new technologies is challenging and interventions must be tailored to the needs and preferences of the households of interest. Future studies require greater process evaluation to improve knowledge of implementation barriers and facilitators. The review was registered on Prospero (registration number CRD42014009796 ). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 43% |
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| France | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 1 | 14% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 71% |
| Scientists | 2 | 29% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 213 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| China | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 210 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 39 | 18% |
| Researcher | 34 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 21 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 3% |
| Other | 31 | 15% |
| Unknown | 49 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 48 | 23% |
| Environmental Science | 23 | 11% |
| Engineering | 23 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 7% |
| Other | 33 | 15% |
| Unknown | 54 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 September 2019.
All research outputs
#2,161,917
of 25,775,807 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,588
of 17,826 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,404
of 277,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#38
of 281 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,775,807 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,826 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 281 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.