A survey of poison center knowledge and utilization among urban and rural residents of Arizona

Abstract

BackgroundPoison control centers (PCCs) hold great potential for saving health care resources particularly by preventing unnecessary medical evaluations. We developed a survey to better identify the needs and experiences of our service community. We hope to use these data to improve PCC outreach education and overall use of our services.MethodA written questionnaire was developed in English and then translated into Spanish. Subjects agreeing to participate were then asked two verbal questions in English: are you at least 18 years of age? And; in what language would you like to complete the questionnaire; English or Spanish? All questionnaires completed by subjects ≥18 years of age were included. Questionnaires with missing responses, other than zip code, were included. Data collected include gender, age, zip code, primary language, ethnicity, education, health insurance status and experiences with the PCC. Subjects were not compensated for participation. Arizona zip codes were divided into “rural” or “urban” based on a census data website. Percentages and odds ratios were determined based on completed responses. Smaller subgroups, for some variables, were combined to increase sample sizes and improve statistical relevance.ResultsOverall, women and subjects with children at home (regardless of ethnicity) were significantly more likely to have heard of the PCC although Blacks and Spanish-speakers were significantly less likely to have heard of the PCC. Similarly, respondents with children at home and those reporting a prior home poisoning (regardless of ethnicity) were significantly more likely to have called the PCC. Blacks were significantly less likely to have called the PCC. These findings were similar among people living in urban zip codes but not statistically significant among rural responders.ConclusionsBased on a small survey, race and language spoken at home were variables identified as being associated with decreased awareness of poison centers. Focusing on these specific groups may assist in efforts to increase PCC penetrance, particularly among urban communities.

Pesticides and environmental injustice in the USA: root causes, current regulatory reinforcement and a path forward

“…There are major barriers in place that make it difficult to tie specific exposures of pesticides to specific harms, particularly to BIPOC communities and those living in poverty. Poison Control Center utilization is known to be much lower in BIPOC and low-income populations, making comparisons between different racial, ethnic and income demographics very difficult [ 64 – 66 ]. Correctly diagnosing illness from acute pesticide harm requires the harmed individual to have access to, and seek, medical treatment, which often doesn’t happen [ 67 ].…”

“…The result is a vast underestimate of the true scope of harm to this largely Latinx community. And because non-occupational injuries from pesticides are often compiled solely from reports to Poison Control Centers – utilization of which is known to be much lower for BIPOC and people of lower socioeconomic status [ 64 – 66 ] – a systemic issue exists with the underlying data that the program is built on.…”

Exploring Demographic and Environmental Factors Related to Unintentional Pesticide Poisonings in Children and Adolescents in Texas

“…The logistic regression models found that for both time periods, percent of black or African American population was significantly associated with unintentional pesticide-related poison center exposures in children and adolescents. Existing literature has found that areas with higher percent black or African American populations have lower poison center utilization rates [ 12 , 13 , 26 ]. Lower poison center utilization may explain this finding.…”

Characterization of Regional Poison Center Utilization Through Geospatial Mapping

“…Low PC penetrance is associated with increased healthcare utilization, particularly in children. 5,8 Variations in penetrance have been attributed to seasonality, 6 changing pediatric population proportions, 9 limited awareness of PC services, 10 and suspicion regarding PC cost and safety of personal information. 11 Social determinants of PC penetrance are less well-defined, although several racial (Black and Native American) and linguistic (low English proficiency and native Spanish-speaking) characteristics are associated with lower PC utilization when compared to White and Englishspeaking populations.…”

“…11 Social determinants of PC penetrance are less well-defined, although several racial (Black and Native American) and linguistic (low English proficiency and native Spanish-speaking) characteristics are associated with lower PC utilization when compared to White and Englishspeaking populations. 5,10,12,13 The use of penetrance has been disputed over time, largely due to a perceived limited efficacy in assessing both PC efforts and outcomes. 9 Although the AAPCC discontinued its use of penetrance as one of multiple methods to ascribe efficacy to individual PC outreach and promotion efforts in 2001, it was done prior to the advent of easily accessible, geospatial mapping tools to provide a more refined data than at a county level, suggesting that penetrance may once again serve a purpose in identifying areas in which PCs are underused.…”