Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31046728›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Risk perception in the population living near the Turin municipal solid waste incineration plant: survey results before start-up and communication strategies.

Antonella Bena, Martina Gandini, Ennio Cadum, Enrico Procopio, Giuseppe Salamina, Manuela Orengia, Elena Farina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Community Concern about the Health Effects of Pollutants: Risk Perception in an Italian Geothermal Area.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Environmental Risks Perception Among Citizens Living Near Industrial Plants: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    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

7 authors.

Antonella BenaDepartment of Epidemiology, ASL TO3, Via Sabaudia 164, 10095, Grugliasco, TO, Italy. antonella.bena@epi.piemonte.it.
Martina GandiniEnvironmental Epidemiological Unit, Regional Environmental Protection Agency, Piedmont Region, Via Pio VII 9, 10135, Torino, Italy.
Ennio CadumDepartment of hygiene and health prevention, Environmental Health Unit, ATS Pavia, Pavia, Italy.
Enrico ProcopioPrevention Department, ASL TO3, Collegno, Torino, Italy.
Giuseppe SalaminaPrevention Department, ASL City of Turin, Torino, Italy.
Manuela OrengiaDepartment of Epidemiology, ASL TO3, Via Sabaudia 164, 10095, Grugliasco, TO, Italy.
Elena FarinaDepartment of Epidemiology, ASL TO3, Via Sabaudia 164, 10095, Grugliasco, TO, Italy.

Funding

Metropolitan Area of Turin resolution n. 409-18423/2014 of 06/06/2014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe start-up of the Turin municipal solid waste incineration plant (2013) was accompanied by surveillance of health effects, which included a human biomonitoring campaign. Here we present the results of the risk perception survey of local residents before the plant went into operation.

methodsThe survey sample was 394 local residents: 198 residing near the plant (exposed group) and 196 residing in an area distant from the plant site (unexposed group). The survey questionnaire investigated awareness of environmental and health issues, including a section on the perception of environmental health risks. Multivariate Poisson regressions were performed to determine the differences in risk perception between the two groups (exposed vs. unexposed).

resultsThe exposed group was more concerned about natural hazards (prevalence ratio [PR] 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-2.61), anthropogenic hazards (PR 1.35; 95% CI 1.03-1.77), and waste management (PR 1.19; 95% CI 0.94-1.50). There were no significant differences in opinions about environmental pollution-related diseases between the two groups, though the exposed considered themselves to be at risk for developing these diseases. The survey population placed its trust more in health care providers than in any other category.

conclusionsThe risk perception survey questionnaire yielded data that enabled a better understanding and interpretation of the social context: residents living near the incineration plant were more concerned than those living distant from it, especially about anthropogenic hazards. This information was subsequently incorporated into the design the communication tools.

Indexed as

IncinerationWaste Disposal FacilitiesEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringEnvironmental PollutionHumansItalyRefuse DisposalRisk AssessmentSolid WasteSurveys and QuestionnairesWaste ManagementSolid WasteMunicipal solid waste incinerationRisk perceptionScientific citizenrySurveillance system

Identifiers

PMID31046728
PMCPMC6498555

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.