ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2013
Extermination strategies reported in the NYC Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2004: prevalence and predictors.
Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is likely that household extermination is a major source of pesticide exposure for urban residents. Little is known about the predictors of residential pest control strategies in urban areas, and greater knowledge of these may help identify who is at risk for higher pesticide exposure. Study data is from the 2004 NYC Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, a cross-sectional, population-based study using a three-stage sampling scheme. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of pesticide use overall, and of application strategy: (1) consumer-applied pesticides only, (2) use of a professional exterminator only, or (3) use of both. Consumer-applied extermination was more prevalent than professional or both professional and consumer (39.9% versus 27.8% and 15.9%, respectively, and non-exclusively). In multivariate models among those who used any extermination, consumer application was associated with age 60 years+, being black or Asian, and being widowed, divorced, or single. Lower income households were more likely to use both strategies, and less likely to use professional extermination only. Urban residents may benefit from targeted education on how and when to self-apply pesticides, and on best-practice pest control to avoid unnecessary pesticide exposure. Higher prevalence of consumer-applied and conjoint consumer and professionally applied extermination in low-income households may reflect both economic determinants of first recourse and higher neighborhood infestation levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23093104What 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.