The efficacy of public health information for encouraging radon gas awareness and testing varies by audience age, sex and profession

Abstract

Radioactive radon inhalation is a leading cause of lung cancer and underlies an ongoing public health crisis. Radon exposure prevention strategies typically begin by informing populations about health effects, and their initial efficacy is measured by how well and how fast information convinces individuals to test properties. This communication process is rarely individualized, and there is little understanding if messages impact diverse demographics equally. Here, we explored how 2,390 people interested in radon testing differed in their reaction to radon's public health information and their subsequent decision to test. Only 20% were prompted to radon test after 1 encounter with awareness information, while 65% required 2–5 encounters over several months, and 15% needed 6 to > 10 encounters over many years. People who most delayed testing were more likely to be men or involved in engineering, architecture, real estate and/or physical science-related professions. Social pressures were not a major factor influencing radon testing. People who were the least worried about radon health risks were older and/or men, while negative emotional responses to awareness information were reported more by younger people, women and/or parents. This highlights the importance of developing targeted demographic messaging to create effective radon exposure prevention strategies.

Social factors and behavioural reactions to radon test outcomes underlie differences in radiation exposure dose, independent of household radon level

“…Response distributions for the entire group are indicated throughout this study (denoted by ‘ALL’) and have also been previously described in Refs. 20 , 24 . As we obtained gender identity responses from a majority but not all participants, we defaulted to sex for individuals whose gender data was missing (see “ Methods ” section).…”

“…For people who had just become aware of radon, we had previously noted 24 differences between groups in ‘time to action’ (t 1 ), best visualized by expressing number of months required to obtain a radon test as a function of the total number of radon awareness information interactions over the period (Fig. 1 E).…”

“…We next assessed how individuals were able to recollect and interpret the outcome of their radon test, and how they reacted emotionally to this information. To assess emotional reactions, we asked participants to reflect on their feelings and select an intensity based upon a standard 5-point psychometric Likert scale (as we had done previously 24 ). The majority were able to correctly recollect their responses completed at the time of surveying (Fig.…”

“…Radon awareness content included basic, scientifically informed facts on radon, its health effects in the context of lung cancer and highlighted both historic facts, figures, and emerging regional statistics and have been outlined in detail in Ref. 24 .…”

Chromatin and the Cellular Response to Particle Radiation-Induced Oxidative and Clustered DNA Damage

“…For a typical person, approximately 40%–45% of lifetime IR exposure is incurred from the inhalation of radioactive radon gas and its alpha-particle emitting progeny, which emanates from the earth and is often concentrated within the built environment to high levels ( Darby et al, 2005 ; Yoon et al, 2016 ; Stanley et al, 2019 ; Khan et al, 2021 ; Simms et al, 2021 ). Exposure to radon can vary widely on an individual level, and depends on how radon levels are shaped by the features of a specific building, human behaviour, psychosocial factors, as well as geography (as geology and regional building codes impact exposure) ( Gaskin et al, 2018 ; Stanley et al, 2019 ; Cholowsky et al, 2021 ; Khan et al, 2021 ; Simms et al, 2021 ). Alpha particles are comprised of two neutrons and two protons, equivalent to a helium nucleus, and are emitted during the decay of radioactive elements ( Sgouros 2008 ).…”