Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24239281›Full record

ArticlePublic health2013

Identifying environmental health priorities in underserved populations: a study of rural versus urban communities.

M C Bernhard, M B Evans, S T Kent, E Johnson, S L Threadgill, S Tyson, S M Becker, J M Gohlke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Potential for city parks to reduce exposure to BTEX in air.Environmental science. Processes & impacts · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

M C BernhardDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), Birmingham, AL, USA.
M B Evans
S T Kent
E Johnson
S L Threadgill
S Tyson
S M Becker
J M Gohlke
University of Alabama at Birmingham · USFriends United · USOld Dominion University · US

Funding

CITY HEALTH - CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF COMMUNITY HEALTHU48DP001915 · DP · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI MICHAEL, MAX · 2009 to 2013
$4.5M
Extreme Heat Events- Evolving risk patterns in urban and rural communitiesR21ES020205 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI GOHLKE, JULIA M · 2011 to 2012
$421k
NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48 DP001915NCCDPHP CDC HHS U48/DP001915NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES020205
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesUnderstanding and effectively addressing persistent health disparities in minority communities requires a clear picture of members' concerns and priorities. This study was intended to engage residents in urban and rural communities in order to identify environmental health priorities. Specific emphasis was placed on how the communities: defined the term environment; their perceptions of environmental exposures as affecting their health; specific priorities in their communities; and differences in urban versus rural populations. STUDY

designA community-engaged approach was used to develop and implement focus groups and compare environmental health priorities in urban versus rural communities.

methodsA total of eight focus groups were conducted: four in rural and four in urban communities. Topics included: defining the term environment; how the environment may affect health; and environmental priorities within their communities, using both open discussion and a predefined list. Data were analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively to identify patterns and trends.

resultsThere were important areas of overlap in priorities between urban and rural communities; both emphasized the importance of the social environment and shared a concern over air pollution from industrial sources. In contrast, for urban focus groups, abandoned houses and their social and physical sequelae were a high priority while concerns about adequate sewer and water services and road maintenance were high priorities in rural communities.

conclusionsThis study was able to identify environmental health priorities in urban versus rural minority communities. In contrast to some previous risk perception research, the results of this study suggest prioritization of tangible, known risks in everyday life instead of rare, disaster-related events, even in communities that have recently experienced devastating damage from tornadoes. The findings can help inform future efforts to study, understand and effectively address environmental issues, and are particularly relevant to developing effective community-based strategies in vulnerable populations.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthHealth PrioritiesRural PopulationUrban PopulationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAlabamaFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedMinority GroupsRisk AssessmentTerminology as TopicCommunity-based interventionsCommunity-engaged approachMinority populationsRisk perceptionRural versus urban communities

Identifiers

PMID24239281
PMCPMC3851598
OpenAlexW2040220193

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.