ArticleJournal of radiation research2018
Annual changes in the Fukushima residents' views on the safety of water and air environments and their associations with the perception of radiation risks.
Article in Journal of radiation research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding the role of social media usage and health self-efficacy in the processing of COVID-19 rumors: A SOR perspective.Data and information management · 2023Article
- Annual prevalence of non-communicable diseases and identification of vulnerable populations following the Fukushima disaster and COVID-19 pandemic.International journal of disaster risk reduction : IJDRR · 2023Article
- Analysis of direction of association between radiation risk perception and relocation using a random-intercept and cross lagged panel model: The Fukushima Health Management Survey.SSM - population health · 2020Article
- Article
- Social Capital Enhanced Disaster Preparedness and Health Consultations after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Nuclear Power Station Accident.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fukushima residents' negative views on the safety of water and air environments have been a concern since the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear power plant (FDNPP) accident. The objective of this study was to clarify the factors determining these negative views and their association with radiation risk perception using the opinion poll conducted by Fukushima Prefecture from 2010 to 2015. In a model, in which the objective variables were the views on the safety of water and air environments, and the explanatory variables were the regions constituting Fukushima and the age and sex of the residents, the odds ratio (OR) of the views on the safety of the water and air environments (reference region: the least affected region) was significantly low at 0.11 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.04-0.28] to 0.18 (0.07-0.46) in the Hamadori region including the evacuation order area, from the accident in 2011 to 2015, with the exception of 2014. In another model, in which the region was excluded from the explanatory variables and radiation risk perception, the distance from the FDNPP and the air dose rate were added to the previous model as an explanatory variable, the views on the safety of the water and air environments were strongly associated with low radiation risk perception (low anxiety) in 2012-2015 [OR: 7.73 (5.25-11.4) to 10.3 (6.71-15.8)], distance from FDNPP, and age, but not with air dose rate. This result suggests that the radiation risk perception, distance from FDNPP, and age were factors determining people's views on the safety of the water and air environment.
Indexed as
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.