The relationship between housing and health: children at risk.

In November 2002, the National Center for Healthy Housing convened a 2-day workshop to review the state of knowledge in the field of healthy housing. The workshop, supported with funds from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and National Center for Environmental Health, was unique in that it focused solely on the effect of housing on children's health and the translation of research findings into practical activities in home construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance. Participants included experts and practitioners representing the health, housing, and environmental arenas. Presentations by subject-matter experts covered four key areas: asthma, neurotoxicants, injury, and translational research. Panel discussions followed the presentations, which generated robust dialogue on potential future research opportunities and overall policy gaps. Lack of consensus on standard measurements, incomplete understanding about the interaction of home hazards, inadequate research on the effectiveness of interventions, and insufficient political support limit current efforts to achieve healthy housing. However, change is forthcoming and achievable. Key words: asthma, childhood exposure, environmental toxicants, healthy housing, lead poisoning.

The effect of interior lead hazard controls on children's blood lead concentrations: a systematic evaluation.

Dust control is often recommended to prevent children's exposure to residential lead hazards, but the effect of these controls on children's blood lead concentrations is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review of randomized, controlled trials of low-cost, lead hazard control interventions to determine the effect of lead hazard control on children's blood lead concentration. Four trials met the inclusion criteria. We examined mean blood lead concentration and elevated blood lead concentrations (> or = 10 microg/dL, > or = 15 microg/dL, and > or = 20 microg/dL) and found no significant differences in mean change in blood lead concentration for children by random group assignment (children assigned to the intervention group compared with those assigned to the control group). We found no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in the percentage of children with blood lead > or = 10 microg/dL, 29% versus 32% [odds ratio (OR), 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56-1.3], but there was a significant difference in the percentage of children with blood lead > or = 15 microg/dL between the intervention and control groups, 6% versus 14% (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.80) and in the percentage of children with blood lead > or = 20 microg/dL between the intervention and control groups, 2% versus 6% (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.10-0.85). We conclude that although low-cost, interior lead hazard control was associated with 50% or greater reduction in the proportion of children who had blood lead concentrations exceeding 15 microg/dL and > or = 20 microg/dL, there was no substantial effect on mean blood lead concentration.