IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0217285.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lingering health-related anxiety about radiation among Fukushima residents as correlated with media information following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant

Author

Listed:
  • Chihiro Nakayama
  • Osamu Sato
  • Minoru Sugita
  • Takeo Nakayama
  • Yujiro Kuroda
  • Masatsugu Orui
  • Hajime Iwasa
  • Seiji Yasumura
  • Rima E Rudd

Abstract

Following the March 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, many residents of Fukushima have faced anxieties about the health impacts of radiation exposure. Considering that source of information may influence resident anxiety, this study aimed to elucidate the correlation between the two. In addition, a health literacy query was included to examine a possible relationship between anxiety and health literacy skills. A mail survey was conducted in August 2016 among 2000 residents of Fukushima Prefecture aged 20 to 79 years. Survey items included questions about current health anxieties caused by radiation, trusted sources of information about radiation, and media used to obtain information on radiation. The survey valid response rate was 43.4%. Results of multiple linear regression analysis revealed that anxiety was significantly higher for the groups indicating “trust in citizen groups” and “use of internet sites.” Anxiety was significantly lower for the groups indicating “trust in government ministries,” “trust in local government,” and “use of local broadcast television.” Also anxiety was significantly lower for groups with higher health literacy. It was found that the significant relationship to anxiety varies depending on the sources of trust and media used. There is a possibility that this was caused by the difference between the contents of each information and media reports. In preparation for any future nuclear accident, government may consider action to improve the media literacy of residents. In addition, improving health literacy of both the recipient and the sender of information can improve access to information and thereby safeguard the health and well-being of the public.

Suggested Citation

  • Chihiro Nakayama & Osamu Sato & Minoru Sugita & Takeo Nakayama & Yujiro Kuroda & Masatsugu Orui & Hajime Iwasa & Seiji Yasumura & Rima E Rudd, 2019. "Lingering health-related anxiety about radiation among Fukushima residents as correlated with media information following the accident at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-17, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0217285
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0217285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217285
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0217285&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0217285?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anders A F Wahlberg & Lennart Sjoberg, 2000. "Risk perception and the media," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 31-50, January.
    2. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    3. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    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. Dolinšek, Špela & Scholz, Christin & Giani, Stefano & van Weert, Julia C.M. & van den Putte, Bas & Meppelink, Corine S., 2024. "The role of mental well-being in the effects of persuasive health messages: A scoping review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 353(C).

    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. aus dem Moore, Nils & Brehm, Johannes & Breidenbach, Philipp & Ghosh, Arijit & Gruhl, Henri, 2022. "Flood risk perception after indirect flooding experience: Null results in the German housing market," Ruhr Economic Papers 976, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    2. Zeynep Altinay & Eric Rittmeyer & Lauren L. Morris & Margaret A. Reams, 2021. "Public risk salience of sea level rise in Louisiana, United States," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(4), pages 523-536, December.
    3. Timothy Sim & Li-San Hung & Gui-Wu Su & Ke Cui, 2018. "Interpersonal communication sources and natural hazard risk perception: a case study of a rural Chinese village," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 94(3), pages 1307-1326, December.
    4. Yi Yang & Ru-De Liu & Yi Ding & Jia Wang & Wei Hong & Ying Wu, 2021. "The Influence of Communication on College Students’ Self–Other Risk Perceptions of COVID-19: A Comparative Study of China and the United States," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-16, November.
    5. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Hannah Brenkert‐Smith & Katherine L. Dickinson & Patricia A. Champ & Nicholas Flores, 2013. "Social Amplification of Wildfire Risk: The Role of Social Interactions and Information Sources," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(5), pages 800-817, May.
    7. Ik Jae Chung, 2011. "Social Amplification of Risk in the Internet Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(12), pages 1883-1896, December.
    8. Reece A. Clothier & Dominique A. Greer & Duncan G. Greer & Amisha M. Mehta, 2015. "Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of Drones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1167-1183, June.
    9. Elina Lampi, 2011. "What do friends and the media tell us? How different information channels affect women's risk perceptions of age-related female infertility," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(3), pages 365-380, March.
    10. Huiyun Zhu & Kecheng Liu, 2021. "Capturing the Interplay between Risk Perception and Social Media Posting to Support Risk Response and Decision Making," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-14, May.
    11. Yaodong Yang & Huaqing Ren & Han Zhang, 2022. "Understanding Consumer Panic Buying Behaviors during the Strict Lockdown on Omicron Variant: A Risk Perception View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-19, December.
    12. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    13. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    14. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    15. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    16. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    18. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    19. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    20. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0217285. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.