ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2018
WIC Participation and Blood Lead Levels among Children 1-5 Years: 2007-2014.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 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.
- A Scoping Review to Identify Community- and Societal-Level Strategies Evaluated from 2013 to 2023 for Their Potential Impact on Child Well-Being in the United States.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Invited Perspective: Identifying Childhood Lead Exposure Hotspots for Action.Environmental health perspectives · 2022Article
- Blood Lead Levels in U.S. Children Ages 1-11 Years, 1976-2016.Environmental health perspectives · 2021Article
- Lead Poisoning Prevention Efforts in High-Risk Environments: Follow-up Testing Rates among Preschool Children in Flint, Michigan, 2013-2015.Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities · 2021Article
- Effects of Individual and Neighborhood Characteristics on Childhood Blood Lead Testing and Elevated Blood Lead Levels, A Pennsylvania Birth Cohort Analysis.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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
backgroundThe CDC recommends a targeted strategy for childhood blood lead screening based on participation in federal programs, such as Medicaid and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). Yet, there is scarcity of data on blood lead levels (BLLs) among WIC participants.
objectiveOur objective was to investigate whether children participating in WIC and not enrolled in Medicaid, who have not been targeted in the historical Medicaid-focused screening strategy, have higher BLLs than children in neither of these programs.
methodsThe analysis included 3,180 children 1-5 y of age in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys conducted in 2007-2014. Log-binomial regression, which allows direct estimation of prevalence ratios, was used to examine associations between WIC participation (in conjunction with Medicaid enrollment) and having BLLs ≥5 μg/dL with adjustment for age (1-2 vs. 3-5 y).
resultsThe percentage of children participating in "WIC only," "Medicaid only," "both WIC and Medicaid," and "neither" were 18.9%, 10.8%, 25.4%, and 44.9%, respectively. "WIC only," "Medicaid only," and "both WIC and Medicaid" children were more likely to have BLLs ≥5 μg/dL than children who were not enrolled in either program, with adjusted prevalence ratios of 3.29 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19, 9.09], 4.56 (95% CI: 2.18, 9.55), and 2.58 (95% CI: 1.18, 5.63).
conclusionsChildren participating in WIC but not Medicaid were more likely to have BLLs ≥5 μg/dL than children who were not enrolled in either program. These findings may inform public health recommendations and clinical practice guidelines. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP2384
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.