Perceptions and experiences of environmental health risks among new mothers: a qualitative study in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a growing awareness and concern in contemporary societies about potential health impacts of environmental contaminants on children. Mothers are traditionally more involved than other family members in managing family health and household decisions and thus targeted by public health campaigns to minimise risks. However little is known about how new mothers perceive and experience environmental health risks to their children. In 2010, we undertook a parallel case study using qualitative, in-depth interviews with new mothers and focus groups with public health key informants in two Public Health Units in Ontario Province, Canada. We found that the concern about environmental hazards among participants ranged from having no concerns to actively incorporating prevention into daily life. Overall, there was a common perception among participants that many risks, particularly in the indoor environment, were controllable and therefore of little concern. But environmental risks that originate outside the home were viewed as less controllable and more threatening. In response to such threats, mothers invoked coping strategies such as relying on the capacity of children's bodies to adapt. Regardless of the strategies adopted, actions (or inactions) were contingent upon active information seeking. We also found an optimistic bias in which new mothers reported that other children were at greater risk despite similar environmental circumstances. The findings suggest that risk communication experts must attend to the social and environmental contexts of risk and coping when designing strategies around risk reducing behaviours.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".