ArticleBMC public health2023
Using the precaution adoption process model and the health belief model to understand radon testing and mitigation: a pre-post quasi-experimental study.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of prescribed burn health risk communication on community and individual smoke-protective decision making using protective action theories.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite being the leading cause of lung cancer for non-smokers, few Canadians take action to test for and mitigate radon. This study's aim was twofold: (1) to investigate predictors of radon testing and mitigation using the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM) and Health Belief Model (HBM); and (2) to assess the impact on beliefs of receiving radon results above health guidelines.
methodsA convenience sample within Southeastern Ontario households was recruited to test their homes for radon (N = 1,566) for a pre-post quasi-experimental study. Prior to testing, participants were surveyed on risk factors and HBM constructs. All participants whose homes tested above the World Health Organization's radon guideline (N = 527) were surveyed after receiving their results and followed for up to 2 years after. Participants were classified into PAPM stages and regression analyses were conducted to determine predictors between different stages (from deciding to test onwards). Paired bivariate analyses compared responses before and after receiving results.
resultsPerceived benefits from mitigating was associated with progressing through all stages in the study's scope. Perceived susceptibility to and severity of illness and perceptions of cost and time to mitigate were associated with progression through some PAPM stages. Homes with smokers or individuals under 18 were associated with not progressing through some stages. Home radon level was associated with mitigation. Attitudes towards many HBM constructs significantly decreased after receiving a high radon result.
conclusionsPublic health interventions should target specific radon beliefs and stages to ensure households test and mitigate for radon.
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.