As the amount of time people spend indoors increases globally, exposure to indoor air pollutants has become an important public health concern. Asthma is a complex disease caused and/or exacerbated by increased exposure to diverse chemical, physical and biological exposures from multiple indoor and outdoor sources. This review aims to investigate the relationship between increased indoor PM and VOC concentrations (i.e. objectively measured) and the risk of adult asthma in higher-income countries. Eleven databases were systematically searched on the February 1, 2019 and again on the February 2, 2020. Articles were limited to those published since 1990. Reference lists were independently screened by three reviewers and authors were contacted to identify relevant articles. Backwards and forward citation chasing was used to identify further studies. Data were extracted from included studies meeting our eligibility criteria by three reviewers and assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale designed for case-control and cohort studies. Twelve studies were included in a narrative synthesis. We found insufficient evidence to determine the effect of PM2.5 on asthma in the indoor home environment. However, there was strong evidence to suggest that VOCs, especially aromatic compounds, and aliphatic compounds, were associated with increased asthma symptoms. Although no single exposure appears to be responsible for the development of asthma or its associated symptoms, the use of everyday products may be associated with increased asthma symptoms. To prevent poor health outcomes among the general population, health professionals and industry must make a concerted effort to better inform the general population of the importance of appropriate use of and storage of chemicals within the home as well as better health messaging on product labelling.

Housing conditions have been an enduring focus for public health activity throughout the modern public health era. However, the nature of the housing and health challenge has changed in response to an evolution in the understanding of the diverse factors influencing public health. Today, the traditional public health emphasis on the type and quality of housing merges with other wider determinants of health. These include the neighbourhood, community, and “place” where a house is located, but also the policies which make access to a healthy house possible and affordable for everyone. Encouragingly, these approaches to policy and action on housing have the potential to contribute to the “triple win” of health and well-being, equity, and environmental sustainability. However, more effective housing policies (and in public health in general) that adopt more systemic approaches to addressing the complex interactions between health, housing, and wider environment are needed. This paper illustrates some of the key components of the housing and health challenge in developed countries, and presents a conceptual model to co-ordinate activities that can deliver the “triple win.” This is achieved by offering a perspective on how to navigate more effectively, inclusively and across sectors when identifying sustainable housing interventions.

Background: Indoor dampness is thought to affect around 16% of European homes. It is generally accepted that increased exposure to indoor dampness and mould contamination (e.g., spores and hyphae) increases the risk of developing and/or exacerbating asthma. Around 30% of people in the Western world have an allergic disease (e.g., allergy, wheeze and asthma). The role of indoor mould contamination in the risk of allergic diseases in older adults is yet to be fully explored. This is of interest because older people spend more time indoors, as well as facing health issues due to the ageing process, and may be at greater risk of developing and/or exacerbating asthma as a result of indoor dampness. Methods: Face-to-face questionnaires were carried out with 302 participants residing in social housing properties located in South West England. Self-reported demographic, mould contamination (i.e., presence of mould growth and mouldy odour) and health information was linked with the asset management records (e.g., building type, age and levels of maintenance). Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate the odd ratios and confidence intervals of developing and/or exacerbating asthma, wheeze and allergy with exposure to reported indoor mould contamination. We adjusted for a range of factors that may affect asthma outcomes, which include age, sex, current smoking, presence of pets, education, and building type and age. To assess the role of mould contamination in older adults, we compared younger adults to those aged over 50 years. Results: Doctor-diagnosed adult asthma was reported by 26% of respondents, 34% had current wheeze while 18% had allergies. Asthma was common among subjects exposed to reported visible mould (32%) and reported mouldy odour (42%). Exposure to visible mould growth and mouldy odour were risk factors for asthma, but not for wheeze or allergy. Exposure to mouldy odour increased the risk of asthma in adults over the age of 50 years (odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10–5.34) and the risk was higher for females than for males (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.37–9.08). These associations were modified by a range of built environment characteristics. Conclusions: We found that older adults living in social (public) housing properties, specifically women, may be at higher risk of asthma when exposed to mouldy odour, which has a number of implications for policy makers and practitioners working in the health and housing sector. Additional measures should be put in place to protect older people living in social housing against indoor damp and mould contamination.

Introduction: In Great Britain, roughly half of people with at least one long-standing illness (LSI) live in low-income households. Lower-income households are at risk of fuel poverty and living in a colder house, which can worsen certain health conditions, causing related morbidity and mortality. This pilot study aimed to assess whether raising occupants’ awareness of indoor temperatures in the home could initiate improved health and well-being among such vulnerable residents. Methods: Thermometers were placed inside a manufactured bamboo brooch to be worn or placed within homes during the winter of 2016/17. These devices were supplied to households (n = 34) already assisted by Community Energy Plus, which is a private social enterprise in Cornwall, United Kingdom (UK), using initiatives aimed at maintaining “healthy homes”. Questionnaires were supplied to households before devices were supplied, and then again at the end of a three-month period, with further questions asked when devices were collected. Temperatures were recorded automatically every half-hour and used to draw inference from questionnaire responses, particularly around health and well-being. Results: Questionnaires were completed by 22 households. Throughout the winter, those declaring the poorest health when supplied with devices maintained homes at a higher average temperature. There were also indications that those with raised awareness of interior temperatures sought fewer casual medicines. Conclusion: Simple telemetry could play a role in the management of chronic health conditions in winter, helping healthcare systems become more sustainable. The need for higher indoor temperatures among people with an LSI highlights the need to consider this approach alongside more sustainable household energy-efficiency improvements. A larger study is needed to explore this further and quantify the cost benefit of this approach.

Fuel poverty affects around 34% of European homes, representing a considerable burden to society and healthcare systems. This pilot study assesses the impact of an intervention to install a new first time central heating system in order to reduce fuel poverty on household satisfaction with indoor temperatures/environment, ability to pay bills and mental well-being. In Cornwall, 183 households received the intervention and a further 374 went onto a waiting list control. A post-intervention postal questionnaires and follow-up phone calls were undertaken (n = 557) to collect data on household demographics, resident satisfaction with indoor environment, finances and mental well-being (using the Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing scale). We compared responses between the waiting list control and intervention group to assess the effectiveness of the intervention. A total of 31% of participants responded, 83 from the waiting list control and 71 from the intervention group. The intervention group reported improvements in the indoor environment, finances and mental well-being. However, these benefits were not expressed by all participants, which may result from diverse resident behaviours, lifestyles and housing characteristics. Future policies need to consider whole house approaches alongside resident training and other behaviour change techniques that can account for complex interactions between behaviours and the built environment.