MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965529566 · doi:10.13140/rg.2.2.26084.01924

Residents' Perception of Radon Health Risk: A Qualitative Study

2019· article· en· W2965529566 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Khan Sm, Samia Chreim

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicRadioactivity and Radon Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadonHealth riskEnvironmental healthQualitative researchPerceptionRisk perceptionGeographyPsychologyMedicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Radon is a high impact environmental pollutant and is the second leading cause of lung cancer in Canada. Building design, extended winter, and geographical location expose residents of Ottawa-Gatineau (the national capital region in Canada) to an increased risk. It is surprising that residents have an inadequate awareness of the risk - despite its gravity - and have taken minimum preventive actions. This study explores perceptions of radon health risk and examines the factors that enable and hinder the adoption of preventive measures among Ottawa-Gatineau residents. 
\nMethods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 residents from varying educational levels and occupational backgrounds to inquire about their knowledge and perception of radon, and to explore their views of enablers and obstacles to taking action to reduce radon risks. Thematic, inductive data analysis was undertaken. 
\nResults: The results indicate that: 1) Residents obtained information on radon from various sources - the media, self-education or occupation, social network, and home renovation events. Limited references were made to the National Radon Program responsible for testing for radon and informing residents. 2) Awareness of radon risk varies, knowledge retained by some residents is insufficient to protect their health adequately. Residents who had dual perceptions- cognitive as well as emotional awareness, motivated enough to act. 3) Enablers for taking protective action: understanding the risk along with health consciousness; caring for family and children; knowing others who had contracted lung cancer and having financial resources. Obstacles included: lack of awareness; cost; lack of home ownership; and potential difficulty in selling the house. 4) Residents attributed primary responsibility to public agencies for disseminating information and incentivizing or mandating action through more stringent regulation.
\nConclusion: Risk perceptions are subjective and influenced by the micro and macro level factors. Inducing protective action requires complex interventions considering dual perceptions of the threat by the public health agencies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.194
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.203
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)Same topicRadioactivity and Radon MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207