The cost of hypertension-related ill-health attributable to environmental noise

Abstract

Hypertension (HT) is associated with environmental noise exposure and is a risk factor for a range of health outcomes. The study aims were to identify key HT related health outcomes and to quantify and monetize the impact on health outcomes attributable to environmental noise-related HT. A reiterative literature review identified key HT related health outcomes and their quantitative links with HT. The health impact of increases in environmental noise above recommended daytime noise levels (55 dB[A]) were quantified in terms of quality adjusted life years and then monetized. A case study evaluated the cost of environmental noise, using published data on health risks and the number of people exposed to various bands of environmental noise levels in the United Kingdom (UK). Three health outcomes were selected based on the strength of evidence linking them with HT and their current impact on society: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and dementia. In the UK population, an additional 542 cases of HT-related AMI, 788 cases of stroke and 1169 cases of dementia were expected per year due to daytime noise levels ≥55 dB(A). The cost of these additional cases was valued at around £1.09 billion, with dementia accounting for 44%. The methodology is dependent on the availability and quality of published data and the resulting valuations reflect these limitations. The estimated intangible cost provides an insight into the scale of the health impacts and conversely the benefits that the implementation of policies to manage environmental noise may confer.

Development of the method of evaluation of the level of environmental safety of housing accommodation and its approbation

“…So, in [12], an estimation of the noise effect on the reduction of life expectancy, adjusted for disability from myocardial infarction, was made. The influence of noise elevated levels on health is combined by the authors with the subsequent monetization [13]. In [14], quality of life is estimated by indicators of the number of population living in the noise pollution zone.…”

Evaluation of the social and economic burden of road traffic noise-attributed myocardial infarction in Bulgarian urban population / Procjena socijalnog i ekonomskog tereta infarkta miokarda povezanog s cestovnom bukom u bugarskog urbanog stanovništva

“…where QLL corresponds to years lived with disability (YLD) x (quality-of-life weight), YLD is the number of incident cases of non-fatal MI attributed to noise (I) x disability weight (DW) x average duration of disability in years (L), L being 1 year (15), DW equals 0.415 (23), quality-of-life weight equals 1 minus DW (19), and life expectancy lost equals 10 [due to a lack of exact data we conservatively assumed 10-year life expectancy after MI (24,25)]. …”

“…Therefore the approach of Harding et al was adopted (19). Finally, the assumption that quality-of-life weight equals 1 minus DW might need relaxing (36).…”

“…Evaluation of the social and economic burden of road traffic noise-attributed myocardial infarction in Bulgaria Arh Hig Rada Toksikol 2015;66: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] the total economic loss has increased € 174,864.46 due to urbanisation and increase in MI mortality and morbidity (data not shown). It is essential to address these environmental issues because CVD are not only the leading mortality cause in Bulgaria, but the healthcare system suffers from insufficient funding and resource allocation.…”

“…Western Europe loses 61,000 disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) annually due to traffic noise-attributed IHD (15). In the United Kingdom 542 new cases of MI each year are expected as a result of noise-related hypertension (L Aeq, 16h≥ 55 dB), whose burden has been estimated to £ 294 billion per year (19). Although WHO developed a methodological framework for quantifying burden of disease from environmental noise, it has been applied mainly for Western European countries "owing to a lack of exposure data in South-East Europe and the newly independent states" (15).…”