2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/157756
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Priority Environmental Risks Among Rural Low-Income Families
Abstract:
Priority Environmental Risks Among Rural Low-Income Families
Conference Sponsor:Western Institute of Nursing
Conference Year:2009
Author:Hill, Wade G., PHCNS-BC
P.I. Institution Name:Montana State University, College of Nursing
Title:Associate Professor
Contact Address:PO Box 173560, Bozeman, MT, 59717-3560, USA
Contact Telephone:406-994-4011
Co-Authors:Tamara Odom-Maryon, PhD, Research Professor and ERRNIE Project Director
Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to (1) describe how rural low-income families rate health risks to a variety of anthropogenic and naturally occurring environmental risks, and (2) discuss the relevance of risk perception in the TERRA Model. Rationale/Background: Among the myriad of behavioral determinants currently considered predictive of precautionary individual or family-level behaviors, personal assessments of risk have perhaps the greatest potential to be confounded by subjective factors. Reproducible trends in risk perception have been published and are used by risk communication experts to frame messages for greatest impact. Among trends in risk perception, risks that are considered voluntary are perceived as less serious than those considered involuntary. Likewise, natural risks (vs. unnatural) and detectable risks (vs. undetectable) are of particular interest to scientists in environmental health because of the broad range of sources for environmental exposures. Description of Project: The Environmental Risk Reduction through Nursing Intervention and Education (ERNIE) project is a randomized controlled trial with the primary aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a public health nurse-delivered intervention designed to improve household environmental risk reduction behaviors. Study sites exist in Gallatin County Montana and Whatcom County Washington. Inclusion criteria include family income less than or equal to 250% poverty level; having at least one child in the home less than or equal to 7 years old; residing outside city limits; and receiving water from a private or small well system. Data reported here were collected at baseline using a 27-item instrument designed by the research team to measure risk perception to a broad range of possible exposures. Item responses range from strongly disagree to strongly agree (7-points) and measure level of concern. Outcomes: Complete data were available for 208 household respondents who were primarily female (91%), white (86%), married (80%), and had total household income of less than $45,000 (77%). A comparison of item means suggests that known trends in risk perception appear evident in our data. For example, risks ranked lowest included cigarette smoke in the home (x=2.96, sd=2.3), animal dander from pets (x=3.79, s=1.94), and contaminants from jobs getting into the home (x=4.45, sd=1.96). These exposures can be classified as controllable, detectable, and familiar. Alternatively, highest rated exposures include methamphetamine production in the community (x=5.81, sd=1.63), mold growth in the home (x=5.74, sd=1.37) and bacteria or germs in our drinking water (x=5.67, sd=1.48), and outdoor air pollution (x=5.26, sd=1.53). These environmental risks can be classified as involuntary, exotic, and/or undetectable. Conclusions: As an important determinant of individual precautionary behavior, perception of risk for environmental exposures should be considered in light of known patterns. Psychoeducational messages may be framed to take advantage of trends in risk perception.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Western Institute of Nursing

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titlePriority Environmental Risks Among Rural Low-Income Familiesen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/157756-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Priority Environmental Risks Among Rural Low-Income Families</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Western Institute of Nursing</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2009</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Hill, Wade G., PHCNS-BC</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Montana State University, College of Nursing</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Associate Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">PO Box 173560, Bozeman, MT, 59717-3560, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">406-994-4011</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">whill@montana.edu</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Tamara Odom-Maryon, PhD, Research Professor and ERRNIE Project Director</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to (1) describe how rural low-income families rate health risks to a variety of anthropogenic and naturally occurring environmental risks, and (2) discuss the relevance of risk perception in the TERRA Model. Rationale/Background: Among the myriad of behavioral determinants currently considered predictive of precautionary individual or family-level behaviors, personal assessments of risk have perhaps the greatest potential to be confounded by subjective factors. Reproducible trends in risk perception have been published and are used by risk communication experts to frame messages for greatest impact. Among trends in risk perception, risks that are considered voluntary are perceived as less serious than those considered involuntary. Likewise, natural risks (vs. unnatural) and detectable risks (vs. undetectable) are of particular interest to scientists in environmental health because of the broad range of sources for environmental exposures. Description of Project: The Environmental Risk Reduction through Nursing Intervention and Education (ERNIE) project is a randomized controlled trial with the primary aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a public health nurse-delivered intervention designed to improve household environmental risk reduction behaviors. Study sites exist in Gallatin County Montana and Whatcom County Washington. Inclusion criteria include family income less than or equal to 250% poverty level; having at least one child in the home less than or equal to 7 years old; residing outside city limits; and receiving water from a private or small well system. Data reported here were collected at baseline using a 27-item instrument designed by the research team to measure risk perception to a broad range of possible exposures. Item responses range from strongly disagree to strongly agree (7-points) and measure level of concern. Outcomes: Complete data were available for 208 household respondents who were primarily female (91%), white (86%), married (80%), and had total household income of less than $45,000 (77%). A comparison of item means suggests that known trends in risk perception appear evident in our data. For example, risks ranked lowest included cigarette smoke in the home (x=2.96, sd=2.3), animal dander from pets (x=3.79, s=1.94), and contaminants from jobs getting into the home (x=4.45, sd=1.96). These exposures can be classified as controllable, detectable, and familiar. Alternatively, highest rated exposures include methamphetamine production in the community (x=5.81, sd=1.63), mold growth in the home (x=5.74, sd=1.37) and bacteria or germs in our drinking water (x=5.67, sd=1.48), and outdoor air pollution (x=5.26, sd=1.53). These environmental risks can be classified as involuntary, exotic, and/or undetectable. Conclusions: As an important determinant of individual precautionary behavior, perception of risk for environmental exposures should be considered in light of known patterns. Psychoeducational messages may be framed to take advantage of trends in risk perception.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T20:10:28Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T20:10:28Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipWestern Institute of Nursingen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.