Towards elimination of asbestos-related diseases: a theoretical basis for international cooperation

Our plain-English summary of Towards elimination of asbestos-related diseases: a theoretical basis for international cooperation, by K. Takahashi, S.K. Kang (Safety and Health at Work, 2010).

The study

• Authors: K. Takahashi, S.K. Kang
• Journal: Safety and Health at Work
• Published: 2010;1(2):103-6
• Cited by: 8 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Publisher · Free full text

Abstract

We develop a theoretical framework for international cooperation that can be used for the elimination of asbestos-related diseases (ARDs). The framework is based on the similarities in the temporal patterns of asbestos use and occurrence of ARDs in diverse countries. The status of each nation can be characterized by observing asbestos use and ARD frequency therein using a time window. Countries that supply technology for prevention of ARDs can be classified as donors and countries that receive these technologies as recipients. We suggest identification of three levels of core preventative technologies. Development of a common platform to gather and manage core preventative technologies will combine the strengths of donor countries and the needs of recipient countries.

In plain English

This invited article proposed a theoretical framework for international cooperation to eliminate asbestos-related diseases (ARDs); beyond mentioning the authors' recent finding of a high correlation between cumulative national asbestos use and mesothelioma case numbers, reported without figures, it presented no study data. They sorted countries into three groups. Group I countries, such as Japan, Korea and Singapore, had banned asbestos officially or de facto, with ARD frequency increasing or approaching a maximum. Group II included many 'economically developing' Asia-Pacific countries. Group III included all African countries except South Africa. Group I was placed on the donor side for prevention technologies, Groups II and III on the recipient side. Primary prevention technologies included workplace air sampling and asbestos fiber counts; secondary, radiography to detect pleural plaques, asbestosis and cancer; tertiary, new mesothelioma treatments and equitable compensation. Citing Japan and Korea, they suggested Korea could supply primary technologies and Japan secondary and tertiary ones. They noted ARDs continue after bans. The authors concluded that a common platform for core preventative technologies would combine donor countries' strengths with recipient countries' needs.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Invited article proposing a theoretical framework; no study methods or data presented, apart from a brief mention of the authors' own recent correlation finding
• Who was studied: Countries worldwide, classified by their asbestos use and asbestos-related disease situation; no individual people were studied
• Exposure: National use of raw asbestos over time in general; no specific fiber types, products or doses were analysed
• Main results:
  • Group I countries were defined as those where asbestos has been banned officially or de facto and where ARD frequency is increasing or approaching a maximum.
  • Group II countries were defined as those where asbestos use is increasing or has just started to fall, and where reports of ARDs are almost nil or just starting to rise. In the Asia-Pacific region this group includes many economically developing countries.
  • Group III included all African countries except South Africa.
  • For the transfer of prevention technologies, Group I countries were placed on the donor side and Group II and III countries on the recipient side.
  • Primary prevention core technologies included air sampling and measuring asbestos fiber numbers in the work environment.
  • Secondary prevention technologies included follow-up of exposed people, such as radiography to detect pleural plaques, asbestosis and cancer.
  • Tertiary prevention technologies included effective treatment of ARDs, new treatment modalities for mesothelioma, and equitable compensation schemes.
  • Japan's ban in principle came in 2005 and its total ban in 2006. Korea's ban in principle came in 2006 and its total ban in 2009.
  • The authors suggested that Korea may be a suitable supplier of primary preventative technologies, and Japan a supplier of secondary and tertiary preventative technologies.
  • The authors stated that ARDs will continue to occur after a ban is achieved.
  • The authors mentioned their own recent finding of a high correlation between cumulative asbestos use and mesothelioma case numbers, based on national-level data from around the world. No methods or figures for that analysis were given in this article.
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that developing a common platform to gather and manage core preventative technologies will combine the strengths of donor countries and the needs of recipient countries towards eliminating ARDs.

Related studies

• International scientific cooperation on asbestos-related disease prevention in Latin America — D. Marsili, P. Comba, et al. (2014)
• Elimination of asbestos use and asbestos-related diseases: an unfinished story — E.K. Park, K. Takahashi, et al. (2012)
• International Analysis of Age-Specific Mortality Rates From Mesothelioma on the Basis of the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision — P. Boffetta, M. Malvezzi, et al. (2018)
• Barriers and Facilitators to the Elimination of Asbestos Related Diseases-Stakeholders' Perspectives — J. Vincenten, F. George, et al. (2017)
• Elimination of Asbestos-Related Diseases in Turkey Still Has a Long Way to Go — M. Akgün (2015)
• Ecological association between asbestos-related diseases and historical asbestos consumption: an international analysis — R.T. Lin, K. Takahashi, et al. (2007)

Browse more research in Safety and Health at Work, or return to medical research.