Methods in Public Health Environmental Justice Research: a Scoping Review from 2018 to 2021

Abstract

Purpose of Review The volume of public health environmental justice (EJ) research produced by academic institutions increased through 2022. However, the methods used for evaluating EJ in exposure science and epidemiologic studies have not been catalogued. Here, we completed a scoping review of EJ studies published in 19 environmental science and epidemiologic journals from 2018 to 2021 to summarize research types, frameworks, and methods. Recent Findings We identified 402 articles that included populations with health disparities as a part of EJ research question and met other inclusion criteria. Most studies (60%) evaluated EJ questions related to socioeconomic status (SES) or race/ethnicity. EJ studies took place in 69 countries, led by the US (n = 246 [61%]). Only 50% of studies explicitly described a theoretical EJ framework in the background, methods, or discussion and just 10% explicitly stated a framework in all three sections. Among exposure studies, the most common area-level exposure was air pollution (40%), whereas chemicals predominated personal exposure studies (35%). Overall, the most common method used for exposure-only EJ analyses was main effect regression modeling (50%); for epidemiologic studies the most common method was effect modification (58%), where an analysis evaluated a health disparity variable as an effect modifier. Summary Based on the results of this scoping review, current methods in public health EJ studies could be bolstered by integrating expertise from other fields (e.g., sociology), conducting community-based participatory research and intervention studies, and using more rigorous, theory-based, and solution-oriented statistical research methods.

Racial and ethnic disparities in preterm birth: a mediation analysis incorporating mixtures of polybrominated diphenyl ethers

“…Third, statistical power was limited when evaluating potential mediation within certain subgroups. Lastly, we were not able to directly measure historical or contemporary environmental racism or adverse environments in these data that are contributing to (or on the causal pathway for) the observed disparities where race and ethnicity act as a proxy for these complex processes ( 75 ). Further studies are needed to inform interventions on the policies and systems level.…”

Understanding the Cardiovascular and Metabolic Health Effects of Air Pollution in the Context of Cumulative Exposomic Impacts

“…Increased susceptibility defines individuals (eg, elderly adults, diabetics) who are at higher risk for adverse health effects than the general population when facing the same level of exposure. 49 Vulnerability from an epidemiological and policy standpoint generally refers to a broader construct of populations who face disproportionately high exposures and, hence, a greater burden of health effects either because of their built, social, or natural environment (Figure 1). The Clean Air Act requires the US EPA to identify and protect not only the general public but also the most vulnerable populations to guide interventions and inform regulatory policy.…”

“…51 This has been a growing area of emphasis in the air pollution and cardiovascular literature, driven by the increased emphasis on environmental justice. 49,50,52 In the following, we highlight key vulnerable subgroups consistently examined in the literature-specifically defined by age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status (SES).…”