Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32559486›Full record

ArticleThe Science of the total environment2020

Improve private well testing outreach efficiency by targeting households based on proximity to a high arsenic well.

Sara V Flanagan, Nicholas A Procopio, Steven E Spayd, Jessie A Gleason, Yan Zheng

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Science of the total environment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara V FlanaganLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964, USA.
Nicholas A ProcopioNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, PO Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625, USA.
Steven E SpaydNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, PO Box 420, Trenton, NJ 08625, USA.
Jessie A GleasonEnvironmental and Occupational Health Surveillance Program, New Jersey Department of Health, PO Box 369, Trenton, NJ 08625, USA.
Yan ZhengSchool of Environmental Science and Engineering, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen 518055, China; Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, 61 Route 9W, Palisades, NY 10964, USA. Electronic address: yan.zheng@sustech.edu.cn.
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory · USNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protection · USNew Jersey Department of Health · US

Funding

Training CoreP42ES010349 · NIEHS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI NAVAS-ACIEN, ANA · 2000 to 2020
$53.6M
NCEH CDC HHS UE2 EH001326NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES010349
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research into precautionary action suggests outreach with personally-relevant risk information may help overcome optimistic biases, which have been shown to impede voluntary testing for arsenic by at-risk private well households. Since 2002, New Jersey's Private Well Testing Act (PWTA) has required testing for arsenic during real estate transactions. The PWTA database of over 35,000 geocoded well arsenic tests offers a unique opportunity to evaluate the efficacy of targeted outreach to neighbors living in proximity to a known high arsenic well with variable risk messaging to motivate testing. In this study, residents of properties (n = 1743) located within 500 ft and between 500 and 1000 ft of a known high arsenic well (>5 μg/L, New Jersey's drinking water arsenic standard) were mailed a notice of the high arsenic result in their neighborhood and offered a free water test. Overall 274 households (16%) requested a test kit and 230 (13%) ultimately submitted a water sample; with significantly higher participation rates among those told their neighborhood well had an arsenic concentration "over 5 times higher" than the standard, compared to those told the concentration was "above." Overall, 25% of wells tested (n = 230), and 47% (n = 66) of non-treated wells located within 500 ft of a well with >25 μg/L arsenic, exceeded the standard for arsenic. Both the arsenic concentration and distance to the neighboring well were significant predictors of exceedance. Given the high proportion of previously untested wells (70%) and their owners' lack of awareness of arsenic in their area (80%), this targeting approach succeeded not only in identifying a much higher proportion of at risk wells than blanket testing by town or county, but also in motivating testing among households unreached by prior awareness-raising activities. In conclusion, geographically and personally-relevant risk targeted messaging and outreach are both efficient and effective.

Indexed as

ArsenicDrinking WaterEnvironmental MonitoringNew JerseyWater Pollutants, ChemicalWater SupplyWater WellsArsenicDrinking WaterWater Pollutants, ChemicalArsenicDrinking water testingOutreachPrivate wellPublic healthSpatial heterogeneity

Identifiers

PMID32559486
PMCPMC7429275
OpenAlexW3027063198

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.