Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to identify economically viable air-pollution control interventions across sectors and settings, and to critically synthesize and appraise the methodological approaches used in economic evaluations of these strategies.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in 2026 across PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus, along with three registries of the Centre for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in Health, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Studies reporting full economic evaluations of air-pollution mitigation interventions and published in English were included. Descriptive synthesis and sector-specific subgroup analyses were undertaken to assess methodological variation and cost-effectiveness. Benefit-cost ratios were recalculated after standardizing costs and benefits to 2025 International Dollar values. Methodological quality was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist.
RESULTS: Of the identified 5,580 records, 92 studies evaluating 381 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Most studies focused on residential interventions (29.3%), followed by transport (26%), and industrial (21%) interventions. Approximately 55% of interventions were reported as cost-effective, with the highest proportion observed in the transport sector. Cost-benefit analysis adopting a societal perspective was the most frequently used evaluation framework. However, among studies with adequate reporting, 64% used time horizons shorter than 10 years, 68% assumed immediate benefits, and 49% conducted sensitivity analyses. Methodological rigor and generalizability were limited, with 23% and 54% of studies scoring 50% or lower on corresponding CASP domains.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial health and economic gains can be achieved through integrated regulatory, technological, and behavioral strategies, particularly from the transport and the industrial sector. However, the evidence remains methodologically heterogeneous and unevenly distributed across sectors and regions. Future research should prioritize greater standardization in methodological and reporting approaches, transparent modelling of exposure and pollutants, and comprehensive valuation of both health and non-health co-benefits.