ArticleHarmful algae2010
Florida Red Tide Perception: Residents versus Tourists.
Article in Harmful algae, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms and Health: Awareness, Behaviors, Perceptions, and Communication Preferences Among U.S. Adults.Journal of environmental health · 2026Article
- Article
- Perceptions of Water-related Environmental Concerns in Northwest Ohio One Year after a Lake Erie Harmful Algal Bloom.Environmental management · 2019Article
- Neurological illnesses associated with Florida red tide (Karenia brevis) blooms.Harmful algae · 2019Article
- Florida Red Tide Knowledge and Risk Perception: Is there a need for tailored messaging?Harmful algae · 2014Article
- The Art of Red Tide Science.Harmful algae · 2012Article
- Frontiers in Outreach and Education: The Florida Red Tide Experience.Harmful algae · 2011Article
- Review of Florida Red Tide and Human Health Effects.Harmful algae · 2011Article
- Risk in daily newspaper coverage of red tide blooms in Southwest Florida.Applied environmental education and communication (Print)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The west coast of Florida has annual blooms of the toxin-producing dinoflagellate, Karenia brevis with Sarasota, FL considered the epicenter for these blooms. Numerous outreach materials, including Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) cards, exhibits for local museums and aquaria, public beach signs, and numerous websites have been developed to disseminate information to the public about this natural hazard. In addition, during intense onshore blooms, a great deal of media attention, primarily via newspaper (print and web) and television, is focused on red tide. However to date, the only measure of effectiveness of these outreach methods has been counts of the number of people exposed to the information, e.g., visits to a website or number of FAQ cards distributed. No formal assessment has been conducted to determine if these materials meet their goal of informing the public about Florida red tide. Also, although local residents have the opinion that they are very knowledgeable about Florida red tide, this has not been verified empirically. This study addressed these issues by creating and administering an evaluation tool for the assessment of public knowledge about Florida red tide. A focus group of Florida red tide outreach developers assisted in the creation of the evaluation tool. The location of the evaluation was the west coast of Florida, in Sarasota County. The objective was to assess the knowledge of the general public about Florida red tide. This assessment identified gaps in public knowledge regarding Florida red tides and also identified what information sources people want to use to obtain information on Florida red tide. The results from this study can be used to develop more effective outreach materials on Florida red tide.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.