Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32148257›Full record

ArticleJournal of environmental management2020

Environmental health perceptions in a superfund community.

Raja M Nagisetty, Daniel A Autenrieth, Sarah R Storey, William B Macgregor, Loran C Brooks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of environmental management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Environmental health perceptions of urban youth from low-income communities: A qualitative photovoice study and framework.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Article
  6. Environmental Health Knowledge Does Not Necessarily Translate to Action in Youth.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. 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.

Raja M NagisettyDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Montana Technological University, 1300 W. Park Street, Butte, MT, 59701, USA. Electronic address: Rnagisetty@mtech.edu.
Daniel A AutenriethDepartment of Safety, Health and Industrial Hygiene, Montana Technological University, 1300 W. Park Street, Butte, MT, 59701, USA.
Sarah R StoreyDepartment of Safety, Health and Industrial Hygiene, Montana Technological University, 1300 W. Park Street, Butte, MT, 59701, USA.
William B MacgregorDepartment of Professional and Technical Communications, Montana Technological University, 1300 W. Park Street, Butte, MT, 59701, USA.
Loran C BrooksDepartment of Environmental Engineering, Montana Technological University, 1300 W. Park Street, Butte, MT, 59701, USA.

Funding

Research Core (Developmental Research Project Program)P20GM103474 · NIGMS · MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY - BOZEMAN · PI Jeffrey Good · 2012 to 2026
$60.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A disconnect between community perceptions and officially documented Superfund remedial actions and health outcomes may hinder the essential community engagement at Superfund sites. This study evaluates the extent of one such potential disconnect in Butte, Montana, which is part of the largest U.S. Superfund site in the U.S. Since the 1860s, when mining began in Butte, mine waste disposal practices in Butte and surrounding areas have left behind massive deposits that have contaminated the area's soil, sediment, groundwater and surface water with arsenic and heavy metals. Over the last four decades, a substantial amount of remediation work has been completed along with requisite community engagement and health studies at this Superfund site. The potential disconnect was evaluated using a new survey instrument that covered: (a) general environmental health perceptions, (b) mine-waste specific environmental health perceptions, (c) effectiveness of community engagement, (d) knowledge of health outcomes, and (e) demographics. The survey results demonstrated a disconnect in many instances where objective remedial improvements may not have resulted in improved environmental health perceptions in the community. The disconnect was most pronounced in the case of drinking water protection from mine waste and knowledge of health outcomes (cancer incidence rates and children's blood levels). The use of similar environmental health perception measurements may aid responsible agencies in monitoring for and addressing environmental health perception disconnects through better community engagement for the benefit of the impacted communities.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthMiningChildEnvironmental MonitoringHazardous SubstancesHumansMontanaSoilHazardous SubstancesSoilCommunity engagementEnvironmental health perceptionsSuperfund

Identifiers

PMID32148257
PMCPMC7195873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.