1. Background
This report presents the results of a modified scoping review of the literature on wind turbines and their impact on human health, in response to a request by the Medical Officer of Health of Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington (KFL&A) Public Health. The purpose of this review was to document and evaluate what is known about the health effects of exposure to wind turbines, summarize research findings from other areas that affect the interpretation of the literature on wind turbines, and identify gaps in current knowledge.
Description of a scoping review
Scoping review studies are designed to describe an issue by drawing on the main findings of published research and other sources. They can be seen as a preliminary attempt to provide an overview of existing literature on a specific topic and to subsequently identify areas where more research might be required1,2. Scoping reviews are also appropriate to address broad research questions3. The methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was developed by Arksey and O'Malley1.
This scoping review provided a review of published and grey literature on wind turbines and health up to 2011. The evidence for health effects of wind turbines was discussed in light of the methodological quality of the studies and results from other relevant noise and health literature.
This review is considered to be a modified scoping review because while it follows the stages of a scoping review, it reviews grey in addition to published literature. To do so, it uses search strategies appropriate for grey literature, as well as traditional indexed search strategies. The presentation of the material here is designed for a non-expert audience.
Objectives of this review
The overall objective of this review was to describe the range of health effects that have been reported to result from exposure to wind turbines and to discuss the evidence for these effects. The review was also designed to identify gaps and areas in which further research is needed. This is not a systematic review, and therefore quality is not a criterion for inclusion.