Comparative Analysis of Environmental Health Regulations and Patient Health Outcomes

Abstract

This study looks at how different rules about environmental health affect public health by looking at the link between these rules and how well patients do with their health. Environmental factors, like the cleanliness of the water and air, and exposure to dangerous materials, are constantly known to play a big role in both long-term and short-term health problems. But even though these external factors are becoming more well known, there is still a big hole in our knowledge of how the rules meant to lower these risks actually lead to real health changes for patients. The study looks at how environmental health policies work in different parts of the world and compares them, focussing on how well they work at lowering the number of people who get diseases like cancer, heart disease, and breathing problems. It uses both personal and quantitative data from case studies, patient health records, and environmental tracking figures to find patterns and links between tighter environmental health rules and better patient results. The study looks at many rules, such as carbon standards and trash management policies, to find the main things that make these measures work or not work. The study also looks at how public health programs, education, and attempts to involve the community affect how well environmental rules work overall. It is also thought about what role discipline and cooperation play in achieving these health gains. The results show that strong public health rules must be put in place and followed in order to improve patients' long-term health. There are, however, differences based on socioeconomic class, region, and access to healthcare resources. This shows the need for a more comprehensive approach that mixes regulatory measures with proactive health treatments.