4.3 Article

Perceived risk of exposure to indoor residential radon and its relationship to willingness to test among health care providers in Tehran

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s40201-014-0118-2

Keywords

Radon; Perceived risk; Risk; Willingness to test; Willingness to pay

Funding

  1. Tehran University of Medical Sciences
  2. Institute for Environmental Research (IER) [18816]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Radon exposure is the second cause of lung cancer after exposure to tobacco smoke and the first cause in nonsmokers. The purpose of this study was to assess perceived risk of exposure to indoor residential radon among health care providers in urban and rural health centers affiliated to Tehran University of Medical Sciences. Method: In 2012-2013, a survey was carried out on 462 health care providers to assess their awareness and risk perception about exposure to indoor residential radon. Only subjects who had previously heard about radon were asked to answer knowledge-based and risk perception questions and report source of knowledge, willingness to test and willingness to pay for radon test kits. Results: About 67% of responders had heard about radon before this study and of these, 83.5% recognized it as being hazardous and 34.5% identified lung cancer as the main health outcome of exposure to radon. Overall, 33% of 310 subjects had knowledgeable awareness. Seventy percent of responders who had previously heard about radon, had high perceived risk and they were more willing to test their houses and more willing to pay for radon test kits. Conclusion: Having knowledge about radon and perceiving it as a risk had a significant association with willing to take relevant health related behaviors. Furthermore, risk perception contributes to willing to spend more money when health is a concern. Education of health care providers seems to be a pre-requisite to public campaigns on radon awareness and testing.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available