There is extensive empirical literature on the association between exposure to nature and health. In this narrative review, we discuss the strength of evidence from recent (i.e., the last decade) experimental and observational studies on nature exposure and health, highlighting research on children and youth where possible. We found evidence for associations between nature exposure and improved cognitive function, brain activity, blood pressure, mental health, physical activity, and sleep. Results from experimental studies provide evidence of protective effects of exposure to natural environments on mental health outcomes and cognitive function. Cross-sectional observational studies provide evidence of positive associations between nature exposure and increased levels of physical activity and decreased risk of cardiovascular disease, and longitudinal observational studies are beginning to assess long-term effects of nature exposure on depression, anxiety, cognitive function, and chronic disease. Limitations of current knowledge include inconsistent measures of exposure to nature, the impacts of the type and quality of green space, and health effects of duration and frequency of exposure. Future directions include incorporation of more rigorous study designs, investigation of the underlying mechanisms of the association between green space and health, advancement of exposure assessment, and evaluation of sensitive periods in the early life-course.

Exposure to atmospheric particulate matter (PM) remains an important public health concern, although it remains difficult to quantify accurately across large geographic areas with sufficiently high spatial resolution. Recent epidemiologic analyses have demonstrated the importance of spatially- and temporally-resolved exposure estimates, which show larger PM-mediated health effects as compared to nearest monitor or county-specific ambient concentrations.

Background: Data for frontline healthcare workers (HCWs) and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are limited and whether personal protective equipment (PPE) mitigates this risk is unknown. We evaluated risk for COVID-19 among frontline HCWs compared to the general community and the influence of PPE. Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study of the general community, including frontline HCWs, who reported information through the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application beginning on March 24 (United Kingdom, U.K.) and March 29 (United States, U.S.) through April 23, 2020. We used Cox proportional hazards modeling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of a positive COVID-19 test. Findings: Among 2,035,395 community individuals and 99,795 frontline HCWs, we documented 5,545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34,435,272 person-days. Compared with the general community, frontline HCWs had an aHR of 11·6 (95% CI: 10·9 to 12·3) for reporting a positive test. The corresponding aHR was 3·40 (95% CI: 3·37 to 3·43) using an inverse probability weighted Cox model adjusting for the likelihood of receiving a test. A symptom-based classifier of predicted COVID-19 yielded similar risk estimates. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE, the aHRs for reporting a positive test were 1·46 (95% CI: 1·21 to 1·76) for those reporting PPE reuse and 1·31 (95% CI: 1·10 to 1·56) for reporting inadequate PPE. Compared with HCWs reporting adequate PPE who did not care for COVID-19 patients, HCWs caring for patients with documented COVID-19 had aHRs for a positive test of 4·83 (95% CI: 3·99 to 5·85) if they had adequate PPE, 5·06 (95% CI: 3·90 to 6·57) for reused PPE, and 5·91 (95% CI: 4·53 to 7·71) for inadequate PPE. Interpretation: Frontline HCWs had a significantly increased risk of COVID-19 infection, highest among HCWs who reused PPE or had inadequate access to PPE. However, adequate supplies of PPE did not completely mitigate high-risk exposures. Funding: Zoe Global Ltd., Wellcome Trust, EPSRC, NIHR, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer’s Society, NIH, NIOSH, Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness RESEARCH IN CONTEXT: Evidence before this study: The prolonged course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, coupled with sustained challenges supplying adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) for frontline healthcare workers (HCW), have strained global healthcare systems in an unprecedented fashion. Despite growing awareness of this problem, there are few data to inform policy makers on the risk of COVID-19 among HCWs and the impact of PPE on their disease burden. Prior reports of HCW infections are based on cross sectional data with limited individual-level information on risk factors for infection. A PubMed search for articles published between January 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 using the terms “covid-19”, “healthcare workers”, and “personal protective equipment,” yielded no population-scale investigations exploring this topic. Added value of this study: In a prospective study of 2,135,190 individuals, frontline HCWs may have up to a 12-fold increased risk of reporting a positive COVID-19 test. Compared with those who reported adequate availability of PPE, frontline HCWs with inadequate PPE had a 31% increase in risk. However, adequate availability of PPE did not completely reduce risk among HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients. Implications of all the available evidence: Beyond ensuring adequate availability of PPE, additional efforts to protect HCWs from COVID-19 are needed, particularly as lockdown is lifted in many regions of the world.

Rationale: Population-based studies have demonstrated associations between ambient air pollution exposures and mortality, but few have been able to adjust for occupational exposures. Additionally, two studies have observed higher risks in individuals with occupational dust, gas, or fume exposure. Objectives: We examined the association of ambient residential exposure to particulate matter less than 10 μm in diameter (PM₁₀), particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in diameter (PM_2.5), NO₂, SO₂, and mortality in 53,814 men in the U.S. trucking industry. Methods: Exposures for PM₁₀, NO₂, and SO₂ at each residential address were assigned using models combining spatial smoothing and geographic covariates. PM_2.5 exposures in 2000 were assigned from the nearest available monitor. Single and multipollutant Cox proportional hazard models were used to examine the association of an interquartile range (IQR) change (6 μg/m³ for PM₁₀, 4 μg/m³ for PM_2.5, 4ppb for SO₂, and 8ppb for NO₂) and the risk of all-cause and cause-specific mortality. Measurements and Main Results: An IQR change in ambient residential exposures to PM₁₀ was associated with a 4.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1–7.7%) increased risk of all-cause mortality. The increase for an IQR change in SO₂ was 6.9% (95% CI, 2.3–11.6%), for NO₂ was 8.2% (95% CI, 4.5–12.1%), and for PM_2.5 was 3.9% (95% CI, 1.0–6.9%). Elevated associations with cause-specific mortality (lung cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory disease) were observed for PM_2.5, SO₂, and NO₂, but not PM₁₀. None of the pollutants were confounded by occupational exposures. In multipollutant models, overall, the associations were attenuated, most strongly for PM₁₀. In sensitivity analyses excluding long-haul drivers, who spend days away from home, larger hazard ratios were observed. Conclusions: In this population of men, residential ambient air pollution exposures were associated with mortality.

Long-term exposure to particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) has been consistently associated with risk of all-cause mortality. The methods used to assess exposure, such as area averages, nearest monitor values, land use regressions, and spatio-temporal models in these studies are subject to measurement error. However, to date, no study has attempted to incorporate adjustment for measurement error into a long-term study of the effects of air pollution on mortality. We followed 108,767 members of the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) 2000–2006 and identified all deaths. Biennial mailed questionnaires provided a detailed residential address history and updated information on potential confounders. Time-varying average PM2.5 in the previous 12-months was assigned based on residential address and was predicted from either spatio-temporal prediction models or as concentrations measured at the nearest USEPA monitor. Information on the relationships of personal exposure to PM2.5 of ambient origin with spatio-temporal predicted and nearest monitor PM2.5 was available from five previous validation studies. Time-varying Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 percent confidence intervals (95%CI) for each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5. Risk-set regression calibration was used to adjust estimates for measurement error. Increasing exposure to PM2.5 was associated with an increased risk of mortality, and results were similar regardless of the method chosen for exposure assessment. Specifically, the multivariable adjusted HRs for each 10 μg/m3 increase in 12-month average PM2.5 from spatio-temporal prediction models were 1.13 (95%CI:1.05, 1.22) and 1.12 (95%CI:1.05, 1.21) for concentrations at the nearest EPA monitoring location. Adjustment for measurement error increased the magnitude of the HRs 4-10% and led to wider CIs (HR = 1.18; 95%CI: 1.02, 1.36 for each 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 from the spatio-temporal models and HR = 1.22; 95%CI: 1.02, 1.45 from the nearest monitor estimates). These findings support the large body of literature on the adverse effects of PM2.5, and suggest that adjustment for measurement error be considered in future studies where possible.