IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10505-d895514.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review of Radon Risk Perception, Awareness, and Knowledge: Risk Communication Options

Author

Listed:
  • Liliana Cori

    (Communication Laboratory in High-Risk Areas, Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, 56124 Pisa, Italy)

  • Olivia Curzio

    (Communication Laboratory in High-Risk Areas, Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, 56124 Pisa, Italy)

  • Gabriele Donzelli

    (Department of Health Science, University of Florence, 50134 Florence, Italy)

  • Elisa Bustaffa

    (Unit of Environmental Epidemiology and Diseases Registries, Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, 56124 Pisa, Italy)

  • Fabrizio Bianchi

    (Communication Laboratory in High-Risk Areas, Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, 56124 Pisa, Italy
    Unit of Environmental Epidemiology and Diseases Registries, Institute of Clinical Physiology, National Research Council, 56124 Pisa, Italy)

Abstract

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer after cigarette smoking, and research on individual risk perception of radon is crucial to prevent its health effects. In this work, we aimed to systematically review the scientific literature that has analyzed radon risk perception, awareness, and knowledge to provide insight on communication actions. For this purpose, following the PRISMA 2020 statement, we searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, focusing on articles published since 2010. After the screening process, we included 40 articles, of which 5 explored only knowledge, 11 added risk perception, 11 further investigated the willingness to make radon measurements, and 13 examined the full cycle of prevention, including risk mitigation actions. Many articles performed a quantitative assessment of the relationship between knowledge/awareness/perception and actions such as radon testing and remediation, showing positive associations and providing interesting elements for evaluating interventions. Furthermore, citizen science actions described by some studies could be crucial for enhancing community self-sufficiency, responsibility, and the quality of preventive actions. To conclude, risk communication can play a key role in making risk prevention possible by reducing exposure, and a multidisciplinary approach, involving constant collaboration with different experts, is essential.

Suggested Citation

  • Liliana Cori & Olivia Curzio & Gabriele Donzelli & Elisa Bustaffa & Fabrizio Bianchi, 2022. "A Systematic Review of Radon Risk Perception, Awareness, and Knowledge: Risk Communication Options," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-27, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10505-:d:895514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10505/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10505/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sérgio Ivan Lopes & Leonel J. R. Nunes & António Curado, 2021. "Designing an Indoor Radon Risk Exposure Indicator (IRREI): An Evaluation Tool for Risk Management and Communication in the IoT Age," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-26, July.
    2. Kirsten Martin & Rebecca Ryan & Thomas Delaney & David A. Kaminsky & Scott J. Neary & Ethan E. Witt & Florence Lambert-Fliszar & Kyle Remy & Shawn Sanford & Kathryn Grenoble & Jan K. Carney, 2020. "Radon From the Ground into Our Schools: Parent and Guardian Awareness of Radon," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(1), pages 21582440209, March.
    3. Wouter Poortinga & Karin Bronstering & Simon Lannon, 2011. "Awareness and Perceptions of the Risks of Exposure to Indoor Radon: A Population‐Based Approach to Evaluate a Radon Awareness and Testing Campaign in England and Wales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1800-1812, November.
    4. Dominic Golding & Sheldon Krimsky & Alonzo Plough, 1992. "Evaluating Risk Communication: Narrative vs. Technical Presentations of Information About Radon," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 27-35, March.
    5. Liliana Cori & Gabriele Donzelli & Francesca Gorini & Fabrizio Bianchi & Olivia Curzio, 2020. "Risk Perception of Air Pollution: A Systematic Review Focused on Particulate Matter Exposure," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-27, September.
    6. Weinstein, N.D. & Klotz, M.L. & Sandman, P.M., 1988. "Optimistic biases in public perceptions of the risk from radon," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 78(7), pages 796-800.
    7. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    8. F. Bouder & T. Perko & R. Lofstedt & O. Renn & C. Rossmann & D. Hevey & M. Siegrist & W. Ringer & C. Pölzl-Viol & A. Dowdall & I. Fojtíková & F. Barazza & B. Hoffmann & A. Lutz & S. Hurst & C. Reifenh, 2021. "The Potsdam radon communication manifesto," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(7), pages 909-912, July.
    9. Dacinia Crina Petrescu & Ruxandra Mălina Petrescu-Mag, 2017. "Setting the Scene for a Healthier Indoor Living Environment: Citizens’ Knowledge, Awareness, and Habits Related to Residential Radon Exposure in Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-19, November.
    10. repec:wrk:wrkemf:22 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mirsina Mousavi Aghdam & Valentina Dentoni & Stefania Da Pelo & Quentin Crowley, 2022. "Detailed Geogenic Radon Potential Mapping Using Geospatial Analysis of Multiple Geo-Variables—A Case Study from a High-Risk Area in SE Ireland," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-17, November.
    2. Andreas Maier & Tarryn Bailey & Annika Hinrichs & Sylvie Lerchl & Richard T. Newman & Claudia Fournier & Charlot Vandevoorde, 2023. "Experimental Setups for In Vitro Studies on Radon Exposure in Mammalian Cells—A Critical Overview," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(9), pages 1-29, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wouter Poortinga & Karin Bronstering & Simon Lannon, 2011. "Awareness and Perceptions of the Risks of Exposure to Indoor Radon: A Population‐Based Approach to Evaluate a Radon Awareness and Testing Campaign in England and Wales," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(11), pages 1800-1812, November.
    2. María-Cruz Negreira-Rey & Jorge Vázquez-Herrero & Tania Forja-Pena, 2024. "Radon Risk Communication through News Stories: A Multi-Perspective Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(10), pages 1-16, September.
    3. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    4. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    5. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    6. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    7. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    8. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    9. Maryono, Maryono & Killoes, Aditya Marendra & Adhikari, Rajendra & Abdul Aziz, Ammar, 2024. "Agriculture development through multi-stakeholder partnerships in developing countries: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    10. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    11. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    14. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    15. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    16. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    17. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.
    19. Bishal Mohindru & David Turner & Tracey Sach & Diana Bilton & Siobhan Carr & Olga Archangelidi & Arjun Bhadhuri & Jennifer A. Whitty, 2020. "Health State Utility Data in Cystic Fibrosis: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 13-25, March.
    20. Subramaniam, Mega & Pang, Natalie & Morehouse, Shandra & Asgarali-Hoffman, S. Nisa, 2020. "Examining vulnerability in youth digital information practices scholarship: What are we missing or exhausting?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10505-:d:895514. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.