Background: Air pollution remains a significant public health risk, particularly in urban areas. Effective communication strategies remain integral to overall protection by encouraging the adoption of personal air pollution exposure reduction behaviours. This study aims to explore how community health professionals can be empowered to communicate air pollution information and advice to the wider community, to encourage the uptake of desired behaviours in the population. Methods: The study adopted a qualitative methodology, where four homogenous Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were held with a range of community health professionals, including Health Care Professionals, Community Health and Wellbeing Workers (CHWWs) and Social Prescribing Link Workers (SPLW). A classical content analysis was conducted with the Structural Empowerment Theory (SET) and Psychological Empowerment Theory (PET) as guiding concepts. Results: Five key themes were identified: from a structural empowerment perspective: [1] resources and support, [2] knowledge. From a psychological empowerment perspective: [3] confidence as advisor, [4] responsibility as advisor, and [5] residents’ receptiveness to advice. It was concluded that advice should be risk stratified, clear, easy to follow and provide alternatives. Conclusion: This study identified ways for community health professionals to be empowered by local councils or other organisations in providing advice on air pollution, through the provision of essential structural support and opportunities to enhance their knowledge and confidence in the subject. Implementing recommendations from this study would not only empower community health professionals to advise on air pollution to the wider community but also increase adherence to health advice.

The relationship between indoor air quality and public health remains under-researched. WellHome is a transdisciplinary community-based study that will engage with residents to co-design feasible and acceptable research to quantify air pollution exposure in 100 homes in West London and examine its potential to exacerbate asthma symptoms in children. Sampling strategies such as using air quality monitors and passive samplers placed in kitchens, children’s bedrooms, and living rooms, will be developed in collaboration with local ambassadors and participating households to measure multiple physical, chemical, microplastic, and biological contaminants. This will provide a comprehensive understanding of indoor air quality across the city’s socio-economic gradient. Other data collected will include housing types and tenure, ventilation practices, occupant behaviours, time-activity, and airway symptoms. Epidemiological analysis will examine air pollution exposure impacts on children’s respiratory health. The particulate mixture’s relative hazard will be evaluated in toxicity studies based on source profiles and activity patterns of participants, focusing on asthma exacerbation related pathways. The study’s findings will be communicated to participants through co-designed reports and inform evidence-based recommendations for reducing indoor air pollution in London and urban areas worldwide. By raising awareness and providing actionable insights, WellHome seeks to contribute to global efforts to improve the health and well-being of vulnerable communities.

There has been growing recognition of the importance of engaging communities in environmental health research. Among the various methods of community-engaged research, one approach is to work with community ambassadors – people who are active and well connected in their communities – to facilitate scientists’ interactions with community members. Drawing on our own experiences as community ambassadors in the WellHome Study, an investigation of indoor air quality in West London, UK, we offer 3 key insights to scientists interested in this model of community-engaged research. We argue, first, that community ambassadors can help scientists build trust and engage research participants. Second, we note the value of fully integrating community ambassadors into a project team and present suggestions for how this may be accomplished. Third, we underscore the importance of remunerating community ambassadors and the need for careful reflection on the amount and form of compensation. While much has been written about the advantages and challenges of community-engaged research, this commentary brings the voice of community members to the fore of these discussions. It highlights how the community ambassador model can bring mutual benefits, furthering research goals while also providing a meaningful experience for community members.

Background: Air pollution is the greatest environmental health risk in the UK, contributing to a range of chronic conditions and preventable deaths each year. General Practitioners and wider healthcare professionals (HCPs) are trusted messengers who regularly advise on modifiable risk factors, yet air pollution is largely absent from medical education and patient-facing communications. To address this gap, an online training intervention was developed to equip HCPs with knowledge and confidence to discuss air pollution with patients and act as “champions” cascading their air quality knowledge to colleagues. Methods: This mixed-methods feasibility study assessed the acceptability of the training intervention, changes in self-reported knowledge and confidence and feasibility of applying a champion model in practise. Outcome measures were underpinned by a Theory of Change. Quantitative data were statistically analysed whilst qualitative data were thematically analysed using a deductive approach. Results: Forty-three HCPs (40 GPs, a nurse practitioner, a pharmacist and a practise manager) completed the training, with 100% completing the pre-training survey, 90% the post-training survey ( n = 40) and 53% the three-month follow up ( n = 26). Improvements were observed across all self-reported outcomes, including understanding of the health impacts of air pollution, the actions patients could take to minimise exposure, and confidence in discussing and advising on the health impacts of air pollution. GPs valued the training and identified a need for practical tools and integration into standard care pathways. Interviews highlighted key barriers to implementing the champion model, including limited time and a lack of a “natural in” during consultations. At 3 months, 85% of trained HCPs who completed the follow up survey ( n = 22) had shared learning with colleagues, indicating successful knowledge sharing. Conclusion: The one-hour education intervention appears to be an acceptable and feasible way to rapidly upskill time-pressured healthcare practitioners to discuss air pollution with patients. The “champion” model shows promise for wider dissemination, but widespread scale-up will likely require integration into medical curricula and clinical training pathways to ensure consistent, long-term education on air pollution.