Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31412828›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Residents' perceptions of radon health risks: a qualitative study.

Selim M Khan, Samia Chreim

Open access · goldAbstract 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Beyond Communication and Risk in a Post-Pandemic World: A Survey on Radon in Spain.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  4. Radon Risk Communication through News Stories: A Multi-Perspective Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Co-Designing Communication: A Design Thinking Approach Applied to Radon Health Communication.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Selim M KhanInterdisciplinary Population Health Doctoral Program, Faculty of Health Sciences, 25 University Private, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada. skhan196@uottawa.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2357-5125
Samia ChreimTelfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, 55 Laurier Av. East, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada.
Institute of Population and Public Health · CAUniversity of Ottawa · CA

Funding

University of Ottawa 7160957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRadon is a high impact environmental pollutant and is the second leading cause of lung cancer in Canada. Building design, extended winter, and geographical location expose residents of Ottawa-Gatineau (the national capital region in Canada) to an increased risk. It is surprising that residents have an inadequate awareness of the risk - despite its gravity - and have taken minimum preventive actions. This study explores perceptions of radon health risk and examines the factors that enable and hinder the adoption of preventive measures among Ottawa-Gatineau residents.

methodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 residents with varying educational and income levels to inquire about their knowledge and perception of radon, and to explore their views of enablers and obstacles to taking action to reduce radon risks. Thematic, inductive data analysis was undertaken.

resultsThe results indicate that: 1) Residents obtained information on radon from various sources that include the media, their education or occupation, their social network, and home renovation events. Limited references were made to the National Radon Program responsible for testing for radon and informing residents. 2) Awareness of radon risk varied, and the knowledge retained by some residents is insufficient to adequately protect their health. 3) Enablers for taking protective action included: having an understanding of the risk along with health consciousness; caring for family and children; knowing others who had contracted lung cancer and having financial resources. Obstacles consisted of: lack of awareness; cost; lack of home ownership; and potential difficulty in selling the house. 4) Residents attributed primary responsibility to public agencies for disseminating information, and incentivizing or mandating action through more stringent regulation.

conclusionRisk perceptions are subjective, and are influenced by micro and macro level factors. Inducing protective action to reduce risk requires comprehensive interventions taking into account the dual cognitive and emotional aspects of risk perception. Future research may explore the dual aspects of risk perception and examine the contents of the risk communication message. Policy should address the responsibility of both governments and residents in tackling the issue.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdolescentAdultAgedCanadaFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedQualitative ResearchRadonRisk AssessmentYoung AdultRadonBarrierEnablerHealth communicationHealth policyMitigationRadonRisk perceptionTesting

Identifiers

PMID31412828
PMCPMC6694642
OpenAlexW2967406676

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.