Objective To determine whether insulating existing houses increases indoor temperatures and improves occupants' health and wellbeing.Design Community based, cluster, single blinded randomised study.Setting Seven low income communities in New Zealand.Participants 1350 households containing 4407 participants.Intervention Installation of a standard retrofit insulation package.Main outcome measures Indoor temperature and relative humidity, energy consumption, self reported health, wheezing, days off school and work, visits to general practitioners, and admissions to hospital.Results Insulation was associated with a small increase in bedroom temperatures during the winter (0.5°C) and decreased relative humidity (−2.3%), despite energy consumption in insulated houses being 81% of that in uninsulated houses. Bedroom temperatures were below 10°C for 1.7 fewer hours each day in insulated homes than in uninsulated ones. These changes were associated with reduced odds in the insulated homes of fair or poor self rated health (adjusted odds ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.68), self reports of wheezing in the past three months (0.57, 0.47 to 0.70), self reports of children taking a day off school (0.49, 0.31 to 0.80), and self reports of adults taking a day off work (0.62, 0.46 to 0.83). Visits to general practitioners were less often reported by occupants of insulated homes (0.73, 0.62 to 0.87). Hospital admissions for respiratory conditions were also reduced (0.53, 0.22 to 1.29), but this reduction was not statistically significant (P=0.16).Conclusion Insulating existing houses led to a significantly warmer, drier indoor environment and resulted in improved self rated health, self reported wheezing, days off school and work, and visits to general practitioners as well as a trend for fewer hospital admissions for respiratory conditions.

Objective To assess whether non-polluting, more effective home heating (heat pump, wood pellet burner, flued gas) has a positive effect on the health of children with asthma.Design Randomised controlled trial.Setting Households in five communities in New Zealand.Participants 409 children aged 6-12 years with doctor diagnosed asthma.Interventions Installation of a non-polluting, more effective home heater before winter. The control group received a replacement heater at the end of the trial.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was change in lung function (peak expiratory flow rate and forced expiratory volume in one second, FEV1). Secondary outcomes were child reported respiratory tract symptoms and daily use of preventer and reliever drugs. At the end of winter 2005 (baseline) and winter 2006 (follow-up) parents reported their child’s general health, use of health services, overall respiratory health, and housing conditions. Nitrogen dioxide levels were measured monthly for four months and temperatures in the living room and child’s bedroom were recorded hourly.Results Improvements in lung function were not significant (difference in mean FEV1 130.7 ml, 95% confidence interval −20.3 to 281.7). Compared with children in the control group, however, children in the intervention group had 1.80 fewer days off school (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 3.13), 0.40 fewer visits to a doctor for asthma (0.11 to 0.62), and 0.25 fewer visits to a pharmacist for asthma (0.09 to 0.32). Children in the intervention group also had fewer reports of poor health (adjusted odds ratio 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.74), less sleep disturbed by wheezing (0.55, 0.35 to 0.85), less dry cough at night (0.52, 0.32 to 0.83), and reduced scores for lower respiratory tract symptoms (0.77, 0.73 to 0.81) than children in the control group. The intervention was associated with a mean temperature rise in the living room of 1.10°C (95% confidence interval 0.54°C to 1.64°C) and in the child’s bedroom of 0.57°C (0.05°C to 1.08°C). Lower levels of nitrogen dioxide were measured in the living rooms of the intervention households than in those of the control households (geometric mean 8.5 μg/m3 v 15.7 μg/m3, P<0.001). A similar effect was found in the children’s bedrooms (7.3 μg/m3 v 10.9 μg/m3, P<0.001).Conclusion Installing non-polluting, more effective heating in the homes of children with asthma did not significantly improve lung function but did significantly reduce symptoms of asthma, days off school, healthcare utilisation, and visits to a pharmacist.Trial registration Clinical Trials NCT00489762.

Background: Housing is an important environmental influence on population health, and there is growing evidence of health effects from indoor environment characteristics such as low indoor temperatures. However, there is relatively little research, and thus little firm guidance, on the cost-effectiveness of public policies to retrospectively improve the standards of houses. The purpose of this study was to value the health, energy and environmental benefits of retrofitting insulation, through assessing a number of forms of possible benefit: a reduced number of visits to GPs, hospitalisations, days off school, days off work, energy savings and CO₂ savings. Methods: All these metrics are used in a cluster randomised trial—the “Housing, Insulation and Health Study”—of retrofitting insulation in 1350 houses, in which at least one person had symptoms of respiratory disease, in predominantly low-income communities in New Zealand. Results: Valuing the health gains, and energy and CO₂ emissions savings, suggests that total benefits in “present value” (discounted) terms are one and a half to two times the magnitude of the cost of retrofitting insulation. Conclusion: This study points to the need to consider as wide a range of benefits as possible, including health and environmental benefits, when assessing the value for money of an intervention to improve housing quality. From an environmental, energy and health perspective, the value for money of improving housing quality by retrofitting insulation is compelling.