Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26282554›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

Public response to the 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia: knowledge, opinions and behaviours.

Elena Savoia, Michael A Stoto, Rahul Gupta, Nasandra Wright, Kasisomayajula Viswanath

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

5 authors.

Elena SavoiaDepartment of Biostatistics and Division of Policy Translation and Leadership Development, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 401 Park Drive, Boston, 02115, MA, USA. esavoia@hsph.harvard.edu.
Michael A StotoDepartment of Health Systems Administration and Population Health, Georgetown University, 3700 Reservoir Road, NW Room 236, Washington, DC, 20057-1107, USA. mstoto@hsph.harvard.edu.
Rahul GuptaWest Virginia Bureau for Public Health, 350 Capitol Street, Charleston, WV, 25301, USA. Rahul.gupta@wv.gov.
Nasandra WrightKanawha-Charleston Health Department, 108 Lee Street East, Charleston, WV, 25301, USA. Nasandra.Wright@wv.gov.
Kasisomayajula ViswanathDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, 02115, MA, USA. vish_viswanath@dfci.harvard.edu.

Funding

OPHPR CDC HHS 1U90TP000147-05OPHPR CDC HHS 5P01TP000307-05OPHPR CDC HHS P01 TP000307
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOn January 9(th) 2014, a faulty storage tank leaked 10,000 gal of an industrial coal processing liquid into the Elk River in West Virginia (WV), contaminating the drinking water of the nine counties collectively known as the Kanawha Valley. The aim of this study was to 1) explore how and when people obtained information about the water contamination and 2) understand how individual and social factors such as socio-demographic characteristics, timing of information, trust in government, and risk perception influenced compliance with recommended behaviours and the public's views on the need for environmental regulations.

methodsBetween February 7-26, 2014, a survey was conducted of adult residents of West Virginia including geographic areas affected and non-affected by the chemical spill. The total population-based sample size was 690 and the survey was administered online. Descriptive statistics and multivariate statistical models were created to determine what factors influenced compliance and public opinions.

resultsFindings from this study show that, during the 2014 West Virginia water crisis, information about water contamination spread quickly, as 73 % of survey respondents across the state and 89 % within the affected counties reported they heard about the incident the same day it occurred. Most people received the information promptly, understood what happened, and understood what to do to prevent exposure to the contaminant. The majority of respondents living in affected counties (70 %) followed the recommended behaviours. Among participants who voiced an opinion on the role of government in environmental regulations, the majority of respondents (54 %) reported there is "too little regulation."

conclusionData from this study show that a higher perception of risk and timely receipt of information are associated with compliance with recommended behaviours, underlying the importance of releasing information to the public as quickly as possible during a crisis. This study also highlights the importance of coordinating risk communication activities beyond the area of the incident to assure public understanding of what measures are recommended, which are not and where.

Indexed as

Chemical Hazard ReleaseDisaster PlanningDisastersHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeRiversAdolescentAdultCyclohexanesEnvironmental MonitoringFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPublic OpinionWater Pollutants, ChemicalWest VirginiaCyclohexanesWater Pollutants, Chemical

Identifiers

PMID26282554
PMCPMC4539923

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.