4.7 Article

Household chemicals and pre-schoolers: Caretakers' beliefs and perspectives on risks and responsibilities

期刊

SAFETY SCIENCE
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105864

关键词

Household chemicals; Risk perception; Accident prevention; Parenting style

资金

  1. Federal Office of Public Health in Switzerland (FOPH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the beliefs and perspectives of parents and caretakers on risks and responsibilities. The findings suggest that some parents have misconceptions about the risks of natural products and the safety of child-protective caps. The study also uncovered relationships between psychological factors and caretakers' beliefs about household chemicals.
Chemical products are present in most households and can endanger the health of humans, particularly toddlers and pre-school children. With a focus on accident prevention, this article investigates parents and other care-takers' beliefs and perspectives on risks and responsibilities. A mixed method approach was applied, combining in-depth qualitative interviews (pre-study, N = 10) and a quantitative survey (main study, N = 688) with Swiss caretakers of pre-school children. The questionnaire of the main study was developed based on the findings from the pre-study, and measured beliefs, perceptions of product, environmental risks, and responsibilities. The main findings suggest some prevalent misconceptions among parents regarding the risks of products perceived to be natural and the safety of child-protective caps. Furthermore, relationships were uncovered between psycho-logical factors, such as perceived responsibility, trust and risk perception, and caretakers' beliefs about house -hold chemicals and their role in accident prevention. These beliefs highlight the need for preventive efforts focused on caretakers exhibiting pragmatic/trusting beliefs, compared to caretakers exhibiting protective or educational beliefs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据