Effects of a coal to clean heating policy on acute myocardial infarction in Beijing: a difference-in-differences analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Chinese Government launched the coal to clean heating policy (CHP), designed to improve air quality and health in China. The CHP banned household coal burning and provided subsidies for clean electric or gas-powered heating for millions of peri-urban and rural households. We aimed to investigate whether the CHP affected the incidence of acute myocardial infarction in Beijing townships. METHODS: In this quasi-experimental study, we obtained township data on acute myocardial infarction hospital admissions and deaths, exposure to the CHP (yes vs no), and a range of covariates for periods before (Jan 1, 2013, to Dec 31, 2014) and after the CHP began (Jan 1, 2016, to Dec 31, 2017; and Jan 1, 2018, to Dec 31, 2019). The policy was gradually rolled out across villages, and townships in our study were considered exposed to the policy in periods when more than 50% of their villages were assigned into the CHP. We estimated the effect of the CHP on township incidence of acute myocardial infarction for all adults (aged ≥35 years) and separately for sex and older adults (aged ≥65 years) using a difference-in-differences approach that accommodates the progressive roll-out of the policy. FINDINGS: Of 307 townships in Beijing, we excluded 156 (51%) urban townships where most villages had central heating and were thus ineligible for the CHP. Of the 151 peri-urban and rural Beijing townships considered eligible for the CHP, 75 (50%) townships were exposed to the CHP by the end of 2017 and 92 (61%) by the end of 2019. We estimated an overall reduction of 6·6% (95% CI -12·3 to -0·8) in the incidence of acute myocardial infarction from before to after roll-out of the CHP in exposed townships relative to those not exposed to the policy, with some evidence of larger effects in women (-11·7% [-19·0 to -4·1%]), older adults (-10·7% [-17·4 to -3·6%]), and in townships exposed for longer (-3·5% [-9·5 to 2·8%] after <2 years and -9·7% [-18·3 to -0·5%] after 2-4 years). INTERPRETATION: Our results provide among the first empirical evidence of possible cardiovascular benefits from a household clean energy policy, and support efforts to implement and assess such policies in China and globally. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".