Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Inhaled Toxicants from Waterpipe and Cigarette Smoking.

OBJECTIVE: Waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) is an emerging trend worldwide. To inform public health policy and educational programming, we systematically reviewed the biomedical literature to compute the inhaled smoke volume, nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide (CO) associated with a single WTS session and a single cigarette. METHODS: We searched seven biomedical bibliographic databases for controlled laboratory or natural environment studies designed to mimic human tobacco consumption. Included studies quantified the mainstream smoke of a single cigarette and/or single WTS session for smoke volume, nicotine, tar, and/or CO. We conducted meta-analyses to calculate summary estimates for the inhalation of each unique substance for each mode of tobacco consumption. We assessed between-study heterogeneity using chi-squared and I-squared statistics. RESULTS: Sufficient data from 17 studies were available to derive pooled estimates for inhalation of each exposure via each smoking method. Two researchers working independently abstracted measurement of smoke volume in liters, and nicotine, tar, and CO in milligrams. All numbers included in meta-analyses matched precisely between the two researchers (100% agreement, Cohen's k=1.00). Whereas one WTS session was associated with 74.1 liters of smoke inhalation (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.2, 110.0), one cigarette was associated with 0.6 liters of smoke (95% CI 0.5, 0.7). One WTS session was also associated with higher levels of nicotine, tar, and CO. CONCLUSIONS: One WTS session consistently exposed users to larger smoke volumes and higher levels of tobacco toxicants compared with one cigarette. These computed estimates may be valuable to emphasize in prevention programming.

Childhood immunization rates in rural Intibucá, Honduras: an analysis of a local database tool and community health center records for assessing and improving vaccine coverage.

BACKGROUND: Vaccines are highly effective at preventing infectious diseases in children, and prevention is especially important in resource-limited countries where treatment is difficult to access. In Honduras, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports very high immunization rates in children. To determine whether or not these estimates accurately depict the immunization coverage in non-urban regions of the country, we compared the WHO data to immunization rates obtained from a local database tool and community health center records in rural Intibucá, Honduras. METHODS: We used data from two sources to comprehensively evaluate immunization rates in the area: 1) census data from a local database and 2) immunization data collected at health centers. We compared these rates using logistic regression, and we compared them to publicly available WHO-reported estimates using confidence interval inclusion. RESULTS: We found that mean immunization rates for each vaccine were high (range 84.4 to 98.8 percent), but rates recorded at the health centers were significantly higher than those reported from the census data (p ≤ 0.001). Combining the results from both databases, the mean rates of four out of five vaccines were less than WHO-reported rates (p <0.05). Overall immunization rates were significantly different between townships (p=0.03). The rates by individual vaccine were similar across townships (p >0.05), except for diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine (p=0.02) and oral polio vaccine (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Immunization rates in Honduras were high across data sources, though most of the rates recorded in rural Honduras were less than WHO-reported rates. Despite geographical difficulties and barriers to access, the local database and Honduran community health workers have developed a thorough system for ensuring that children receive their immunizations on time. The successful integration of community health workers and a database within the Honduran decentralized health system may serve as a model for other immunization programs in resource-limited countries where health care is less accessible.