Cooking fuel and symptoms of chronic respiratory disease in ageing adults: Evidence from West Africa and North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The combustion of solid fuels (e.g., wood, coal, and charcoal) for cooking fuel is widespread in low– and middle-income countries. The use of these fuels increases exposure to airborne pollutants which have been shown to increase the risk of disease and premature death, particularly among older individuals. Despite this, most studies examining this association come from India and China. Furthermore, few studies have examined this association among the elderly. This study aims to fill this gap by examining the association between household cooking fuel and chronic respiratory disease. Methods We analyzed data from Wave 2 of the World Health Organization’s Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health. Our study sample consists of 7,253 adults aged 50+ from Mexico and Ghana. Logistic regression was conducted to study the association between chronic respiratory disease (measured by whether the participant reported having either (1) a medical diagnosis for chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder, chronic bronchitis, or emphysema, or (2) symptoms suggesting chronic lung infection), and the main cooking fuel used by the household. Results The prevalence of chronic respiratory disease was 6.55% and 17.45% for Ghana and Mexico, respectively. 15.96%, and 22.47% of participants lived in households using solid fuels for cooking. Adjusting for covariates, solid fuel use was associated with 1.72 (95%CI: 1.07-2.79; p=0.026) times higher odds of chronic respiratory disease. Regional disparities were found, with individuals in Mexico and Ghana respectively having 1.70 (95%CI:1.01-2.89; p=0.049) and 3.40 (95%CI:1.50-7.72; p=0.004) higher adjusted odds for chronic respiratory disease. Conclusions Our results confirm the association found between the use of solid fuels and increased chronic respiratory disease risk. These findings demonstrate the salience of improving access to clean cooking fuels and methods, especially for households in the sub-Saharan region, particularly, women. Policy interventions need to capture the unique needs of women to ensure that health outcomes from energy use are well-mitigated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".