OBJECTIVES: To examine the level of awareness of radon issues, correlates of elective testing behaviors, and the accuracy of risk perception for radon exposures among rural residents receiving public health services. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used in which questionnaire data and household analytic data for radon levels were collected from a nonprobabilistic sample of rural households. SAMPLE: Thirty-one rural households with 71 adults and 60 children participated in the study. Primary household respondents were female (100%), Caucasian (97%), and primarily (94%) between 21 and 40 years of age. MEASUREMENT: Questionnaire data consisted of knowledge and risk perception items about radon and all homes were tested for the presence of radon. RESULTS: The prevalence of high airborne radon (defined as> or=4 pCi/l) was 32%. More than a third of the sample underestimated the seriousness of health effects of radon exposure, 39% disagreed that being around less radon would improve the long-term health of their children, and 52% were unsure whether radon could cause health problems. After adjusting for chance, only 21% of the subjects correctly understood their risk status. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence that low-income rural citizens do not understand their risk of radon exposure or the deleterious consequences of exposure.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the level of awareness of radon issues, correlates of elective testing behaviors, and the accuracy of risk perception for radon exposures among rural residents receiving public health services. DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was used in which questionnaire data and household analytic data for radon levels were collected from a nonprobabilistic sample of rural households. SAMPLE: Thirty-one rural households with 71 adults and 60 children participated in the study. Primary household respondents were female (100%), Caucasian (97%), and primarily (94%) between 21 and 40 years of age. MEASUREMENT: Questionnaire data consisted of knowledge and risk perception items about radon and all homes were tested for the presence of radon. RESULTS: The prevalence of high airborne radon (defined as> or=4 pCi/l) was 32%. More than a third of the sample underestimated the seriousness of health effects of radon exposure, 39% disagreed that being around less radon would improve the long-term health of their children, and 52% were unsure whether radon could cause health problems. After adjusting for chance, only 21% of the subjects correctly understood their risk status. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence that low-income rural citizens do not understand their risk of radon exposure or the deleterious consequences of exposure.
Authors: L Tammy Duckworth; Marilyn Frank-Stromborg; William A Oleckno; Pam Duffy; Kenneth Burns Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Katherine M Evans; Jenna Bodmer; Bryce Edwards; James Levins; Amanda O'Meara; Merima Ruhotina; Richard Smith; Thomas Delaney; Razelle Hoffman-Contois; Linda Boccuzzo; Heidi Hales; Jan K Carney Journal: J Environ Public Health Date: 2015-04-28
Authors: James P Mc Laughlin; Jose-Luis Gutierrez-Villanueva; Tanja Perko Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-03-23 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Kelsey Gordon; Paul D Terry; Xingxing Liu; Tiffany Harris; Don Vowell; Bud Yard; Jiangang Chen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-09-30 Impact factor: 3.390