Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38374422›Full record

ReviewJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2024

A state-by-state comparison of policies that protect private well users.

Katlyn Schmitt, Darya Minovi, Sophie Loeb, Mary H Ward

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Private Well Water Safety: Practical Counseling Strategies for Primary Care.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
    Review
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

4 authors.

Katlyn SchmittCenter for Progressive Reform, 1250 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 700, Washington, DC, 20036, USA. katlynschmittmd@gmail.com.ORCID 0009-0008-7587-8682
Darya MinoviUnion of Concerned Scientists, 1825 K St NW #800, Washington, DC, 20006, USA.
Sophie LoebCenter for Progressive Reform, 1250 Connecticut Ave NW Suite 700, Washington, DC, 20036, USA.
Mary H WardOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Room SG/6E138, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.

Funding

Cancer Risk and Environmental ExposuresZIACP010125 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI PURDUE, MARK · 2009 to 2025
$41.3M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CP010125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the Safe Drinking Water Act allows states and localities to adopt stronger protections for drinking water, state and local requirements concerning private drinking water wells vary dramatically and often do not provide necessary protections for residents who rely on well water.

objectiveThis paper inventories ten types of policies including laws, regulations, programs, and activities that states have adopted or partaken in to encourage safe drinking water for residential well owners.

methodsTo identify categories of private well protections, we conducted a preliminary internet search with key search terms to create an initial list of 10 categories of laws, regulations, programs, and activities (collectively referred to as "policies") that states have taken to protect residential well water quality. To have a private well safety category present, the law, regulation, program, or activity must fit within the scope of the ten classifications. To limit the breadth of our search, we excluded local and county protections, as well as activities by non-governmental organizations. We also excluded basic construction standards for new wells and licensing standards for well drillers, both of which are covered under a previous study. We conducted an additional internet search to complete a comprehensive review of each state and category and to validate our previous findings. In addition to this internet search, we completed phone and email outreach to the state agencies implementing the well safety categories identified in our internet search to confirm our results.

resultsThe results indicate a wide range of state-based well water protections. The number of residential well water protections present in each state ranged from 8 policies in Iowa, Kentucky, and Maine to 1 policy in Oklahoma, with a median of 5 policies across the 50 states. IMPACT: This paper examines protections that states have implemented to safeguard residential well water quality and to protect the health of people who rely on well water. This research reviews state-level regulations, laws, and programs, as opposed to local, municipal, county-level, or quasi-governmental protections for residential well owners. Residential well policies were examined across ten categories. Without any protections at the federal level, this research reveals gaps in state regulation and demonstrates the need for broader adoption of comprehensive state-level policies to better protect residential well owners from drinking water contaminants and their associated public health impacts.

Indexed as

Drinking WaterHumansInternetPolicyPublic HealthWater QualityDrinking Watergroundwaterpublic healthwell water

Identifiers

PMID38374422
PMCPMC10985836

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.