ArticleToxics2025
Analysis of Women's Knowledge, Health Risk Perceptions, Beliefs and Avoidance Behaviour in Relation to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Personal Care and Household Products.
Article in Toxics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Integration of the Integrate, Design, Assess, and Share Framework in Developing the Environmental Health Literacy Toolkit Paraben-Free & Me: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- From beauty to burden: mapping the health and psychosocial impacts of fragrances and cosmetic products use in the UAE.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- What do people need to know about endocrine disrupting chemicals and health? A mental models approach using focus groups of community-engaged research teams and a national survey.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Risk perception of personal care products: A scoping review of knowledge translation strategies in environmental health.Journal of public health research · 2025Review
- Using evidence-based models of human behaviour to reduce endocrine-disrupting chemicals exposure: recommendations for strengthening interventions.Open research Europe · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence highlights the association between endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) found in personal care and household products (PCHPs) and adverse reproductive and developmental health outcomes. Women are disproportionately at risk due to frequent use of PCHPs, encountering a variety of different chemicals daily. Despite known health risks, existing policies often fail to provide adequate protection, with gaps remaining in understanding women's knowledge, risk perceptions, and beliefs about EDCSs in PCHP, as well as how these influence avoidance behaviours. This study examines women's knowledge, health risk perceptions, beliefs, and avoidance behaviors regarding EDCs commonly found in PCHPs, including bisphenol A, lead, parabens, phthalates, perchloroethylene, and triclosan. Guided by the Health Belief Model, a questionnaire was administered to 200 women in the preconception and conception periods in Toronto, Canada. Analyses revealed that lead and parabens were the most recognized EDCs, while triclosan and perchloroethylene were the least known. Greater knowledge of lead, parabens, bisphenol A, and phthalates significantly predicted chemical avoidance in PCHPs. Higher risk perceptions of parabens and phthalates also predicted greater avoidance. Women with higher education and chemical sensitivities were more likely to avoid lead. These findings support the need for targeted education to improve awareness to reduce EDC exposure-especially among women.
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.