| Literature DB >> 34313302 |
Hitomi Matsunaga1, Makiko Orita1, Keiko Oishi1, Yasuyuki Taira1, Noboru Takamura1.
Abstract
Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34313302 PMCID: PMC8438246 DOI: 10.1093/jrr/rrab058
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Radiat Res ISSN: 0449-3060 Impact factor: 2.724
Demographic characteristics, psychological status, and perception of the effects of radiation exposure on heath by group
| Items | Unit | Group 1 n = 38 | Group 2 n = 111 | Group 3 n = 276 | Group 4 n = 709 | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | Male | 24 (63.2%) | 59 (53.2%) | 143 (51.8%) | 329 (46.4%) | 0.86 |
| Age (years) | ≥ 60 | 25 (65.8%) | 80 (72.1%) | 157 (56.9%) | 475 (67.0%) | < 0.01 |
| Living with children aged <18 years | Yes | 3 (7.9%) | 13 (11.7%) | 61 (22.1%) | 138 (19.5%) | 0.03 |
| Living alone | Yes | 14 (36.8%) | 30 (27.0%) | 58 (21.0%) | 102 (14.4%) | < 0.01 |
| Born in Okuma town | Yes | 23 (60.5%) | 74 (66.7%) | 165 (56.9%) | 355 (50.1%) | < 0.01 |
| Physical activity for more than one hour a day | Yes | 20 (52.6%) | 60 (54.1%) | 146 (56.9%) | 419 (59.1%) | 0.28 |
| Life is worth living | Yes | 27 (71.1%) | 69 (62.2%) | 177 (56.9%) | 471 (66.4%) | 0.67 |
| Reluctance to consume foods from Okuma | Yes | 8 (21.1%) | 47 (42.3%) | 158 (56.9%) | 423 (59.7%) | < 0.01 |
| Reluctance to drink tap water from Okuma | Yes | 7 (18.7%) | 57 (51.4%) | 177 (64.1%) | 488 (68.8%) | < 0.01 |
| Belief that living in Okuma will be associated with health effects from radiation | Yes | 9 (23.7%) | 43 (38.7%) | 177 (64.1%) | 413 (58.3%) | < 0.01 |
| Belief that genetic effects will appear in the next generation | Yes | 11 (28.9%) | 53 (47.7%) | 179 (64.9%) | 417 (58.8%) | < 0.01 |
| Recognition of consultation services with radiation experts | Yes | 29 (76.3%) | 41 (36.9%) | 111 (40.2%) | 343 (48.4%) | 0.01 |
| Consultation requests with radiation experts | Yes | 15 (39.5%) | 50 (45.0%) | 117 (42.4%) | 141 (19.1%) | < 0.01 |
Note. The chi-squared test was used for analysis. Group 1 had already returned home, Group 2 wished to return home, Group 3 was unsure about whether to return home, and Group 4 had decided not to return home.
Logistic regression analyses of Group 2 vs Group 4 and Group 3 vs Group 4
| Group 2 (ref.) vs Group 4 | Group 3 (ref.) vs Group 4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Items | Unit | OR | 95%Cl | OR | 95%Cl |
| Age (years) | < 60/≥ 60 | 0.8 | 0.5–1.3 | 1.6 | 1.2–2.1 |
| Born in Okuma town | Yes/No | 1.9 | 1.2–3.0 | 1.5 | 1.1–2.0 |
| Reluctance to consume foods from Okuma | Yes/No | 0.7 | 0.4–1.1 | 0.6 | 0.4–0.9 |
| Belief that living in Okuma will be associated with health effects from radiation | Yes/No | 0.4 | 0.2–0.7 | 1.4 | 0.9–2.0 |
| Recognition of consultation services with radiation experts | Yes/No | 0.5 | 0.3–0.8 | 0.7 | 0.5–0.9 |
| Consultation requests with radiation experts | Yes/No | 4.6 | 2.9–7.2 | 3.2 | 2.3–4.3 |
Note. OR; odds ratio, CI; confidence interval. Group 2 wished to return home, Group 3 was unsure about whether to return home, and Group 4 had decided not to return home.
*p < 0.05.
**p < 0.01.