A Population Health Approach to Examine Ottawa-Gatineau Residents’ Perception of Radon Health Risk
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Radon is a high impact environmental pollutant and is the second leading cause of lung cancer in Canada. Despite the gravity of the health risk, residents have inadequate awareness and have taken minimum preventive actions. The success of any population-level health awareness program is contingent on the views and actions of key decision makers at the household level. People's perceptions of the risk should inform health communication messaging that aims to motivate them to take preventive measures. The objective of this study was to measure the quantifiable associations and predictions between perceptions of radon health risk and their preventive actions; to explore and examines the social determinants that enable and hinder the adoption of preventive measures. Additionally, the best effective radon control systems for both the new and existing houses and relevant policy implications have been examined. \nMethods: A mixed methods study consisting of surveys (n=557) and qualitative interviews (n=35) was conducted with both homeowners and tenants of Ottawa-Gatineau areas. Descriptive, correlation and regression analyses addressed the quantitative research questions. Thematic, inductive analysis identified themes in the qualitative data. A mixed methods analysis triangulate both results. A registered systematic review of radon interventions around the world was conducted and radon policy analysis was done by applying interdisciplinary frameworks. \nResults: Residents’ perceptions of radon health risk, smoking at home, social influence, and care for family significantly correlated with their intention to test for radon; the same variables predicted their protection behaviours. Residents obtained information on radon from the media, individual search, workplace and social networks. Residents who had dual - cognitive and emotional awareness of the risk, were motivated enough to take action. Having an understanding of the risk, caring for family, knowing others who contracted lung cancer and being financially capable were enablers for action. Obstacles included lack of awareness, cost of mitigation, lack of home ownership and potential stigma in selling the house. Residents attributed primary responsibility to public agencies for disseminating information and suggested incentivizing and mandating actions to promote preventive measures. Indoor radon is best controlled by installing an active SSDS with additional measures to seal any entry points in the foundation. The policy analysis generated a list of recommendations that can be implemented through multisectoral systems level actions to address the social determinants of risk distribution. \nConclusions: Residents do not get the crucial information on radon health risk and report barriers in testing and engaging in protective action. Risk perceptions are subjective and influenced by micro and macro level factors. Inducing protective action to reduce risk requires comprehensive interventions taking into account dual perceptions of the threat. Future research can explore the dual aspects of risk perception and examine the contents of the risk communication message. Policy should address the shared responsibility of both governments and residents in tackling the issue with reasonable incentives and mandatory regulations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».