Different types of housing and respiratory health outcomes

Abstract

Evidence has shown that housing conditions may substantially influence the health of residents. Different types of housing have different structures and construction materials, which may affect indoor environment and housing conditions. This study aimed to investigate whether people living in different types of housing have different respiratory health outcomes. The data from the 1999–2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were used for the analyses. The types of housing included houses, townhouses, apartments, and mobile homes. Respiratory symptoms included wheezing, coughing, sputum, and dyspnea; respiratory diseases included asthma, chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Multiple logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) after adjustment for potential confounding factors. A total of 11,785 participants aged 40 years and older were included in the analyses. Compared with those living in single family houses, participants living in mobile homes were more likely to have respiratory conditions, the OR (95% CI) was 1.38 (1.13–1.69) for wheezing, and 1.49 (1.25–1.78) for dyspnea; whereas participants living in apartments were less likely to have respiratory conditions, the OR (95% CI) was 0.58 (0.36–0.91) for chronic bronchitis, and 0.69 (0.49–0.97) for COPD. Compared with living in single family houses, living in mobile home was associated with worse, whereas living in apartments was associated with better, respiratory health outcomes. Further research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and prevent adverse respiratory effects associated with living in mobile homes.

Mobile home residence as a risk factor for adverse events among children in a mixed rural–urban community: A case for geospatial analysis

“…The unadjusted expected case density is based purely on child population. We also calculated expected case density taking into account age/sex-specific prevalence reflecting three age classes (<6, [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and SES by applying the HOUSES-specific AE prevalence.…”

“…4 Likewise, we recently reported that lower SESas measured by the individual-level SES measure HOUSES (HOUsing-based SocioEconomic Status)is an independent risk factor for childhood adversity in the mixed rural-urban community of Olmsted County, Minnesota. 6 Apart from SES, factors associated with the risk of childhood trauma have been reported relating housing or neighborhood characteristics and a number of different topics including health complaints, 7,8 cigarette smoking, dental hygiene, 9 chronic health conditions, 3,10 functional and cognitive impairment, 11 inhalation exposures, 8,[12][13][14][15][16] and infection risk. Scant literature addresses the impact of housing and neighborhoods on health outcomes in a well-defined pediatric population with existing studies focusing on the elderly 11 or high school students.…”

Design, development, and public health

“…There is little peer-reviewed literature addressing public health outcomes or related strategies in market-rate multifamily real estate. Current research addressing health in multifamily projects most frequently explores low-income housing topics such as energy efficient retrofits (Underhill et al 2018), particle emissions (Chan et al 2018), and respiratory health outcomes across housing types (Gan et al 2017). While corporate real estate developers specializing in office buildings can cite returns on investments in the form or fewer employee sick days and higher employee retention rates (Klimek 2016), it is more difficult to translate these types of returns into the residential real estate market.…”

Florida neighborhood analysis of social determinants and their relationship to life expectancy

“…Mobile homes influence health through multiple social mechanisms such as indoor housing risks (e.g. fire, injuries, toxins), unstable housing tenure, and the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood [15,16]. Households with a larger number of occupants tend to have limited income to spend on housing, low-wage employment opportunities, and higher stress levels [17].…”