Fine particulate air pollution <2.5 μm in diameter (PM(2.5)) is a major environmental threat to global public health. Multiple national and international medical and governmental organizations have recognized PM(2.5) as a risk factor for cardiopulmonary diseases. A growing body of evidence indicates that several personal-level approaches that reduce exposures to PM(2.5) can lead to improvements in health endpoints. Novel and forward-thinking strategies including randomized clinical trials are important to validate key aspects (e.g., feasibility, efficacy, health benefits, risks, burden, costs) of the various protective interventions, in particular among real-world susceptible and vulnerable populations. This paper summarizes the discussions and conclusions from an expert workshop, Reducing the Cardiopulmonary Impact of Particulate Matter Air Pollution in High Risk Populations, held on May 29 to 30, 2019, and convened by the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Four decades ago, U.S. life expectancy was within the same range as other high-income peer countries. However, during the past decades, the United States has fared worse in many key health domains resulting in shorter life expectancy and poorer health—a health disadvantage. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a panel of national and international health experts and stakeholders for a Think Tank meeting to explore the U.S. health disadvantage and to seek specific recommendations for implementation research opportunities for heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders. Recommendations for National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute consideration were made in several areas including understanding the drivers of the disadvantage, identifying potential solutions, creating strategic partnerships with common goals, and finally enhancing and fostering a research workforce for implementation research. Key recommendations included exploring why the United States is doing better for health indicators in a few areas compared with peer countries; targeting populations across the entire socioeconomic spectrum with interventions at all levels in order to prevent missing a substantial proportion of the disadvantage; assuring partnership have high-level goals that can create systemic change through collective impact; and finally, increasing opportunities for implementation research training to meet the current needs. Connecting with the research community at large and building on ongoing research efforts will be an important strategy. Broad partnerships and collaboration across the social, political, economic, and private sectors and all civil society will be critical—not only for implementation research but also for implementing the findings to have the desired population impact. Developing the relevant knowledge to tackle the U.S. health disadvantage is the necessary first step to improve U.S. health outcomes.
