Radon gas is a significant health threat linked to thousands of preventable deaths each year. One population that may be at increased risk from harm from radon exposure is African Americans. However, little is known about what African Americans think or know about radon. A theoretically based evaluation of radon awareness and reduction campaigns was conducted with African Americans. The knowledge and perceptions results indicate that African Americans often hold inaccurate beliefs regarding radon (e.g., confusing it with carbon monoxide gas), perceive it to be a serious threat, and perceive recommended responses to be inadequate in averting harm. The campaign materials evaluation shows that campaign materials often promote perceptions of threat but not perceptions of efficacy regarding recommended responses. Recommendations are given for public health practitioners.
References
1.
1. Environmental Protection Agency: A Citizen's Guide to Radon: The Guide to Protecting Yourself and Your Family From Radon (2nd ed., 402-K92-001). Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1994.
2.
2. Pershagen G, Akerblom G, Axelson O, Clavensjo B, Damber L, Desai G, Enflo A, Lagarde F, Mellander H, Svartengren M, Swedjemark GA: Residential radon exposure and lung cancer in Sweden. New England Journal of Medicine330:159-164, 1994.
3.
3. Michigan Department of Public Health: Indoor Radon in Michigan: Residential Survey Summary. Lansing, MI, Bureau of Environmental and Occupational Health, 1990.
4.
4. Kennedy CJ, Probart CK, Dorman SM: The relationship between radon knowledge, concern and behavior, and health values, health locus of control and preventive health behaviors. Health Education Quarterly18:319-329, 1991.
5.
5. Kutzmark T, Geis D: The radon problem. Public Management, May, 1994, pp. 8-15.
6.
6. Bostrom A, Fischhoff B, Morgan MG: Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: A methodology and an application to radon. Journal of Social Issues48:85-100, 1992.
7.
7. Brun W: Cognitive components of risk perception: Natural versus manmade risks. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making5:117-132, 1992.
9. Mainous AG, Hagen MD: Public perceptions of radon risk. Family Practice Research Journal13:63-69, 1993.
10.
10. McDaniels TL, Kamlet MS, Fischer GW: Risk perception and the value of safety. Risk Analysis12:495-503, 1992.
11.
11. Sandman PM, Weinstein ND, Miller P: High risk or low: How location on a "risk ladder" affects perceived risk. Risk Analysis14:35-45, 1994.
12.
12. Weinstein ND, Sandman PM, Roberts NE: Perceived susceptibility and self-protective behavior: A field experiment to encourage home radon testing. Health Psychology10:25-33, 1991.
13.
13. National Medical Association: NMA Fact Sheet: Radon and Its Medical Consequences. Washington, DC, National Medical Association, 1994.
14.
14. American Lung Association: Lung Disease Data. New York, American Lung Association, 1995.
15.
15. Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations: Health Risks of Radon and Other Internally Deposited Alpha-Emitters (Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation IV). Washington, DC, Pergamon, 1988.
16.
16. Vaughan E, Nordenstam B: The perception of environmental risks among ethnically diverse groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology22:29-60, 1991.
17.
17. Witte K, Morrison K: Intercultural and cross-cultural health communication: Understanding people and motivating healthy behaviors. International and Intercultural Communication Annual19:216-246, 1995.
18.
18. Atkin CK, Freimuth V: Formative evaluation research in campaign design, in Rice RE, Atkin CK (eds.): Public Communication Campaigns (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1989, pp. 131-150.
19.
19. Flay BR, Cook TD: Three models of summative evaluation of prevention campaigns with a mass media component, in Rice RE, Atkin CK (eds.): Public Communication Campaigns (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1989, pp. 175-195.
20.
20. Mody B: Designing Messages for Development Communication: An Audience Participation-Based Approach. Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1991.
21.
21. Maibach E, Parrott RL: Designing Health Messages: Approaches From Communication Theory and Public Health Practice. Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1995.
22.
22. Witte K: Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs59:329-349, 1992.
23.
23. Witte K: Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using the EPPM to explain fear appeal successes and failures, in Andersen PA, Guerrero LK (eds.): Handbook of Communication and Emotion: Theory, Research, Applications, and Contexts. New York, Academic Press, 1998, pp. 423-450.
24.
24. Janis IL: Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent developments in theory and experimental research, in Berkowitz L (ed.): Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 3). New York, Academic Press, 1967, pp. 166-225.
25.
25. Leventhal H: Findings and theory in the study of fear communications, in Berkowitz L (ed.): Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 5). New York, Academic Press, 1970, pp. 119-186.
26.
26. Rogers RW: A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology91:93-114, 1975.
27.
27. Rogers RW: Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation, in Cacioppo J, Petty RE (eds.): Social Psychophysiology. New York, Guilford, 1983, pp. 153-176.
28.
28. Witte K: The role of threat and efficacy in AIDS prevention. International Quarterly of Community Health Education12:255-249, 1992.
29.
29. Witte K: Generating effective risk messages: How scary should your risk communication be?Communication Yearbook18:229-254, 1994.
30.
30. Witte K: Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs61:113-134, 1994.
31.
31. Witte K, Berkowitz J, Cameron K, McKeon J: Preventing the spread of genital warts: Using fear appeals to promote self-protective behaviors. Health Education & Behavior25: 1998.
32.
32. Witte K, Cameron K, McKeon J, Berkowitz J: Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication1:317-341, 1996.
33.
33. Witte K, Peterson TR, Vallabhan S, Stephenson MT, Plugge CD, Givens VK, Todd JD, Becktold MG, Hyde MK, Jarrett R: Preventing tractor-related injuries and deaths in rural populations: Using a persuasive health message (PHM) framework in formative evaluation research. International Quarterly of Community Health Education13:219-251, 1993.
34.
34. Krueger RA: Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1988.
35.
35. U.S. Bureau of the Census: 1990 Census of the population, Compiled and released by Demographic Research and Statistics, Michigan Department of Management and Budget, 517-373-7910.
36.
36. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN: Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1990.
37.
37. Samet JM: Radon and lung cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute81:745-757, 1989.
38.
38. Axelson O: Occupational and environmental exposures to radon: Cancer risks. Annual Review of Public Health12:235-255, 1991.
39.
39. Blot WJ, Xu ZY, Boice JD, et al.: Indoor radon and lung cancer in China. Journal of the National Cancer Institute82:1025-1030, 1990.
40.
40. Schoenberg JB, Klotz JB, Wilcox HB, et al: Case-control study of residential radon and lung cancer among New Jersey women. Cancer Research50:6520-6524, 1990.
41.
41. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Healthy People 2000: National Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Objectives (Full report, DHHS Pub. No. (PHS) 91-50212). Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1991.
