Homes are a major source of radon exposure as the radioactive gas can enter and become trapped inside. Because radon gas is odorless, colorless, and tasteless, testing one’s home for radon is necessary to determine exposure risk. In 2005, the U.S. Surgeon General released a national health advisory on radon urging all Americans to test their home for radon and take action to reduce levels when radon levels are ≥ 4.0 pCi/L (US Department of Health and Human Services, 2005). Despite the warning, few Americans test their homes for radon. A telephone survey of radon awareness, testing, and remediation was conducted with 1,209 randomly selected New York residents. Half the sample lived in a high-radon county and the other half lived in a low-radon county based on an EPA map of radon zones. Findings revealed that while 82% reported having heard of radon, only 15% had tested their home (Wang et al. 2000). A recent analysis of 20 years of observed home radon values in Kentucky reported an annual residential radon testing rate of only 13.4 per 10,000 house- holds (Stanifer et al. 2021). Furthermore, many US residents are un- familiar with radon (Nissen et al. 2012) and its health effects
(Duckworth et al. 2002), and few view radon as an immediate health risk in their homes
(Wang et al 1999; Duckworth et al. 2002). The relatively low public knowledge of radon and low percentage of Americans who have tested their homes for radon necessitates renewed efforts and methods for increasing the public’s knowledge of radon and home radon testing and mitigation.
Citizen science, a research approach by which the public addresses community concerns through active participation with scientists during the research process, has demon- strated its ability to prompt action (King et al. 2021) and increase knowledge and skills (Peter et al. 2021). Citizen science approaches differ from traditional research methods in that non-scientists are recruited to collect and analyze their own data and are trained
in rigorous scientific methods as part of the research process (Booth al. 2020; Odunitan-
Wayas 2020). Another characteristic of the citizen science approach is the report back, meaning the non-scientists are engaged in reviewing and synthesizing the results and reporting back the findings to local stake- holders (King et al. 2021). Report back may occur using different modes of communication and various target audiences. For example, Odunitan-Wayas (2020) recruited non- scientists to use a mobile app to take photos and use audio narratives to evaluate barriers and promoters of physical activity in a low- income South African community, and the citizen scientists facilitated a workshop/ community meeting to review and prioritize their findings with community members and suggest potential solutions. Citizen science approaches, unlike traditional research, may be referred to as participatory action research because these approaches are often designed to contribute to positive change, engage participants in realistic solutions, and move the research to action (King et al. 2021; Odunitan-Wayas et al. 2020). A recent systematic review of citizen science contributions to radon research included eight past or ongoing citizen science initiatives from five different countries (including the study reported he (Martell et al. 2021). The review concluded citizen science approaches have generated new knowledge and understanding of radon in the scientific community while also increasing home radon testing and, to a lesser degree, mitigation in the general population. The study reported here contributes to the body
of knowledge, particularly our understanding of citizen science contributions to radon research in rural communities where access
to radon testing and mitigation is often challenging.
Having the necessary public knowledge and information to protect human health from environmental hazards, like radon, requires environmental health literacy (EHL) (Gray 2018). EHL is the ability to recognize a specific environmental health hazard, understand the source(s) of the hazard, apply that understanding to taking preventive health action, assess personal risk of exposure, evaluate ways of mitigating risk, and create a plan to mitigate the risk (Finn and O’Fallon 2017). Most EHL studies measure knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about one or more specific toxicants (e.g., radon) to identify levels of EHL (Gray 2018). EHL-building interventions and methods, including citizen science approaches, draw from social science fields like health communication, health literacy, and risk and participatory communication (Hoover 2019). Finn and O’Fallon (2017) suggest EHL assessments be tailored to the topic and population. Recent examples of EHL interventions have improved the diagnosis of air pollution information needs (Ramirez et al. 2019) and have improved environmental health knowledge by developing and adapting a mobile app (Dellinger et al. 2019). In addition, citizen science approaches using environmental sampling and Photovoice with Appalachian and urban youths have built knowledge, efficacy, and engagement (Cardarelli et al. 2021), while research in California engaged high school students in community air monitoring (Madrigal et al. 2020). A goal of EHL is to foster greater understanding of environmental health risks among individuals, which in turn prompts action to reduce risk (Finn and O’Fallon 2017). Indeed, those with higher self-efficacy in radon testing and mitigation were more likely than those with lower self-efficacy to take action to test and remediate for radon (Hahn et al. 2019).
Given that citizen science approaches often empower people to take action and adapt their own environmental health behaviors, we launched Radon on the RADAR (Residents Acting to Detect and Alleviate Radon), a community-engaged, citizen science research collaboration to promote home radon testing in four rural counties of Kentucky. We trained 60 non-scientist community residents as citizen scientists to test their homes for radon and report back the findings. We engaged them in a focus group to evaluate their experience. We evaluated changes in EHL and efficacy via an online survey administered at baseline, post-radon testing, and at 4–5 months after implementing a citizen science approach. We hypothesized that EHL, response efficacy, health information efficacy, and self-efficacy related to radon testing and mitigation would increase over time.
Continued on next page ...
... continued from page 15.
16