BACKGROUND: Green building systems have proliferated but health outcomes and associated costs and benefits remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare health before and after families moved into new green healthy housing with a control group in traditionally repaired housing. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed methods study in 3 Chicago housing developments. PARTICIPANTS: Public housing and low-income subsidized households (n = 325 apartments with 803 individuals). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported health status, visual assessment of housing condition, indoor air sampling, and Medicaid expenditure and diagnostic data. Medicaid expenditures and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes were modeled using a generalized linear model with γ distribution and log-link. RESULTS: Housing conditions and self-reported physical and mental health improved significantly in the green healthy housing study group compared with both the control group and the dilapidated public housing from which the residents moved, as did hay fever, headaches, sinusitis, angina, and respiratory allergy. Asthma severity measured by self-reported lost school/work days, disturbed sleep, and symptoms improved significantly, as did sadness, nervousness, restlessness, and child behavior. Medicaid data in this exploratory study were inconclusive and inconsistent with self-reported health outcomes and visual assessment data on housing quality but hold promise for future investigation. Possible sources of bias in the Medicaid data include older age in the study group, changes in Medicaid eligibility over time, controlling for Medicaid costs in an urban area, and the increased stress associated with moving, even if the move is into better housing. CONCLUSION: The mixed method approach employed here describes the complex relationships among self-reported health, housing conditions, environmental measures, and clinical data. Housing conditions and self-reported physical and mental health improved in green healthy housing. Health care cost savings in Medicaid due to improved housing could not be quantified here but hold promise for future investigations with larger cohorts over a longer follow-up period.
BACKGROUND: Green building systems have proliferated but health outcomes and associated costs and benefits remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To compare health before and after families moved into new green healthy housing with a control group in traditionally repaired housing. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed methods study in 3 Chicago housing developments. PARTICIPANTS: Public housing and low-income subsidized households (n = 325 apartments with 803 individuals). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported health status, visual assessment of housing condition, indoor air sampling, and Medicaid expenditure and diagnostic data. Medicaid expenditures and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes were modeled using a generalized linear model with γ distribution and log-link. RESULTS: Housing conditions and self-reported physical and mental health improved significantly in the green healthy housing study group compared with both the control group and the dilapidated public housing from which the residents moved, as did hay fever, headaches, sinusitis, angina, and respiratory allergy. Asthma severity measured by self-reported lost school/work days, disturbed sleep, and symptoms improved significantly, as did sadness, nervousness, restlessness, and child behavior. Medicaid data in this exploratory study were inconclusive and inconsistent with self-reported health outcomes and visual assessment data on housing quality but hold promise for future investigation. Possible sources of bias in the Medicaid data include older age in the study group, changes in Medicaid eligibility over time, controlling for Medicaid costs in an urban area, and the increased stress associated with moving, even if the move is into better housing. CONCLUSION: The mixed method approach employed here describes the complex relationships among self-reported health, housing conditions, environmental measures, and clinical data. Housing conditions and self-reported physical and mental health improved in green healthy housing. Health care cost savings in Medicaid due to improved housing could not be quantified here but hold promise for future investigations with larger cohorts over a longer follow-up period.
Authors: Meryl D Colton; Jose Guillermo Cedeno Laurent; Piers MacNaughton; John Kane; Mae Bennett-Fripp; John Spengler; Gary Adamkiewicz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Piers MacNaughton; John Spengler; Jose Vallarino; Suresh Santanam; Usha Satish; Joseph Allen Journal: Build Environ Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 6.456
Authors: Diane R Gold; Gary Adamkiewicz; Syed Hasan Arshad; Juan C Celedón; Martin D Chapman; Ginger L Chew; Donald N Cook; Adnan Custovic; Ulrike Gehring; James E Gern; Christine C Johnson; Suzanne Kennedy; Petros Koutrakis; Brian Leaderer; Herman Mitchell; Augusto A Litonjua; Geoffrey A Mueller; George T O'Connor; Dennis Ownby; Wanda Phipatanakul; Victoria Persky; Matthew S Perzanowski; Clare D Ramsey; Päivi M Salo; Julie M Schwaninger; Joanne E Sordillo; Avrum Spira; Shakira F Suglia; Alkis Togias; Darryl C Zeldin; Elizabeth C Matsui Journal: J Allergy Clin Immunol Date: 2017-05-10 Impact factor: 10.793
Authors: Joseph G Allen; Piers MacNaughton; Usha Satish; Suresh Santanam; Jose Vallarino; John D Spengler Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Alessandro Morganti; Andrea Brambilla; Andrea Aguglia; Andrea Amerio; Norberto Miletto; Nicolò Parodi; Chiara Porcelli; Anna Odone; Alessandra Costanza; Carlo Signorelli; Gianluca Serafini; Mario Amore; Stefano Capolongo Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-02 Impact factor: 3.390