BackgroundLong-term exposure to particulate matter (PM) has essential and profound effects on human health, but most current studies focus on high-income countries. Evidence of the correlations between PM and health effects in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), especially the risk factor PM1 (particles < 1 mu m in size), remains unclear. ObjectiveTo explore the effects of long-term exposure to particulate matter on the morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in LMICs. MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases from inception to May 1, 2022. Cohort studies and case-control studies that examine the effects of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 on the morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in LMICs were included. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Outcomes were analyzed via a random effects model and are reported as the relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. ResultsOf the 1,978 studies that were identified, 38 met all the eligibility criteria. The studies indicated that long-term exposure to PM2.5, PM10, and PM1 was associated with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases: (1) Long-term exposure to PM2.5 was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity (RR per 1.11 mu g/m(3), 95% CI: 1.05, 1.17) and mortality (RR per 1.10 mu g/m(3), 95% CI: 1.06, 1.14) and was significantly associated with respiratory mortality (RR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.25, 1.38) and morbidity (RR 1.08, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.04); (2) An increased risk of respiratory mortality was observed in the elderly (65+ years) (RR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.47) with long-term exposure to PM2.5; (3) Long-term exposure to PM10 was associated with cardiovascular morbidity (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01, 1.13), respiratory morbidity (RR 1.43, 95% CI: 1.21, 1.69) and respiratory mortality (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10, 1.49); (4) A significant association between long-term exposure to PM1 and cardiovascular disease was also observed. ConclusionsLong-term exposure to PM2.5, PM10 and PM1 was all related to cardiovascular and respiratory disease events. PM2.5 had a greater effect than PM10, especially on respiratory diseases, and the risk of respiratory mortality was significantly higher for LMICs than high-income countries. More studies are needed to confirm the effect of PM1 on cardiovascular and respiratory diseases.

Background: The interrelationships between research evidence and policy-making are complex. Different theoretical frameworks exist to explain general evidence-policy interactions. One largely unexplored element of these interrelationships is how evidence interrelates with, and influences, policy/political agenda-setting. This review aims to identify the elements and processes of theories, frameworks and models on interrelationships of research evidence and health policy-making, with a focus on actionability and agenda-setting in the context of mental health in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: A systematic review of theories was conducted based on the BeHeMOTh search method, using a tested and refined search strategy. Nine electronic databases and other relevant sources were searched for peer-reviewed and grey literature. Two reviewers screened the abstracts, reviewed full-text articles, extracted data and performed quality assessments. Analysis was based on a thematic analysis. The included papers had to present an actionable theoretical framework/model on evidence and policy interrelationships, such as knowledge translation or evidence-based policy, specifically target the agenda-setting process, focus on mental health, be from LMICs and published in English. Results: From 236 publications included in the full text analysis, no studies fully complied with our inclusion criteria. Widening the focus by leaving out 'agenda-setting', we included ten studies, four of which had unique conceptual frameworks focusing on mental health and LMICs but not agenda-setting. The four analysed frameworks confirmed research gaps from LMICs and mental health, and a lack of focus on agenda-setting. Frameworks and models from other health and policy areas provide interesting conceptual approaches and lessons with regards to agenda-setting. Conclusion: Our systematic review identified frameworks on evidence and policy interrelations that differ in their elements and processes. No framework fulfilled all inclusion criteria. Four actionable frameworks are applicable to mental health and LMICs, but none specifically target agenda-setting. We have identified agenda-setting as a research theory gap in the context of mental health knowledge translation in LMICs. Frameworks from other health/policy areas could offer lessons on agenda-setting and new approaches for creating policy impact for mental health and to tackle the translational gap in LMICs.