Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate and summarize evidence on the effectiveness of interventions available to public health staff regarding the protection of the public from environmental risks.
Method: This systematic review involved a comprehensive literature search, screening for relevance, quality assessment of relevant studies, data extraction and synthesis.
Results: Fourteen of 65 relevant studies were of ‘moderate’ or ‘strong’ quality. Intervention types in these 14 studies included: mass campaign, counselling, school curriculum, educational sessions, and distribution of printed materials. Short-term improvements in awareness or knowledge were observed in 13 of the 14 studies. Eight of 13 studies that examined behavioural outcomes observed short-term improvements in self-reported behavioural outcomes.
Conclusions: Positive short-term changes in health-protective awareness, knowledge and selfreported behaviour appear to be associated with relatively intensive interventions that use multiple methods and settings, and/or are delivered over multiple sessions.
Résumé
Objet: Évaluer et résumer les preuves de l’efficacité des interventions dont dispose le personnel de la santé publique pour protéger la population contre les risques liés à l’environnement.
Méthode: Cette étude systématique s’est composée d’une analyse documentaire exhaustive, d’un tri des résultats en fonction de leur pertinence, d’une évaluation de la qualité des études sur la question et de l’extraction et de la synthèse des données.
Résultats: Quatorze des 65 études pertinentes étaient de qualité « moyenne » ou « élevée ». Parmi les types d’intervention recensés dans ces 14 études, on trouve les campagnes de masse, le counseling, les séances de sensibilisation et la diffusion de documents imprimés. Dans 13 des 14 études, on a observé des améliorations rapides de la prise de conscience et de la connaissance du sujet. Dans 8 des 13 études portant sur les résultats comportementaux, on a observé des améliorations rapides dans les résultats déclarés par les répondants.
Conclusions: Les changements positifs rapides (sensibilisation aux mesures de protection de la santé, connaissances et modification auto-déclarée du comportement) semblent associés aux interventions relativement intensives, qui ont recours à de multiples méthodes et milieux ambiants, et (ou) sont répétées à maintes reprises.
Footnotes
This project was made possible through core funding from the Ontario Ministry of Health for the Public Health Research, Education and Development (PHRED) partnership.
The technical report (Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Environmental Awareness Interventions) that this paper is based on is available from the corresponding author.
References
- 1.Chance GW, Harmsen E. Children are different: Environmental contaminants and children’s health. Can J Public Health. 1998;89(Suppl.1):S9–S13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Health CanadaOntario Ministry of Health. The Health and Environment Handbook for Health Professionals; Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Riedel D, Tremblay N, Tompkins E. State of Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and Human Health in the Great Lakes Basin. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Donawho C, Wolf P. Sunburn, sunscreen and melanoma. Current Opinion in Oncology. 1996;8(2):159–66. doi: 10.1097/00001622-199603000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Rice DC. Neurotoxicity of lead: Commonalities between experimental and epidemiological data. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;86(Suppl.2):337–51. doi: 10.1289/ehp.96104s2337. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.McBride ML. Childhood cancer and environmental contaminants. Can J Public Health. 1998;89(Suppl.1):S53–S62. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Foster W. Endocrine disruptors and development of the reproductive system in the fetus and children: Is there cause for concern? Can J Public Health. 1998;89(Suppl.1):S37–S41. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Ontario Ministry of Health. Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines. Toronto, Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Huss K, Squire ENJ, Carpenter GB, et al. Effective education of adults with asthma who are allergic to dust mites. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1992;89(4):836–43. doi: 10.1016/0091-6749(92)90439-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Strecher VJ, Bauman KE, Boat B, et al. The role of outcome and efficacy expectations in an intervention designed to reduce infants’ exposure to environmental tobacco smoke. Health Educ Res. 1993;8(1):137–43. doi: 10.1093/her/8.1.137. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Wahlgren DR, Hovell MF, Meltzer SB, et al. Reduction of environmental tobacco smoke exposure in asthmatic children. Chest. 1997;111(1):81–88. doi: 10.1378/chest.111.1.81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.McIntosh NA, Clark NM, Howatt WF. Reducing tobacco smoke in the environment of the child with asthma: A cotinine-assisted, minimal- contact intervention. J Asthma. 1994;31(6):453–62. doi: 10.3109/02770909409089487. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.McMahan S, Meyer J. Reducing exposure to electromagnetic fields: The effects of low- and high-threat risk messages on behavior change. Environ Health. 1997;60(3):12–16. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Katz RC, Jernigan S. Brief report: An empirically derived educational program for detecting and preventing skin cancer. J Behav Med. 1991;14(4):421–28. doi: 10.1007/BF00845117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Mayer JA, Slymen DJ, Eckhardt L, et al. Reducing ultraviolet radiation exposure in children. Prev Med. 1997;26(4):516–22. doi: 10.1006/pmed.1997.0166. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mermelstein RJ, Riesenberg LA. Changing knowledge and attitudes about skin cancer risk factors in adolescents. Health Psychol. 1992;11(6):371–76. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.11.6.371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Dietrich AJ, Olson AL, Engr CH, et al. A community-based randomized trial encouraging sun protection for children. Pediatrics. 1998;102(6):1–8. doi: 10.1542/peds.102.6.e64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Graham-Brown RAC, Osborne JE, London SP, et al. The initial effects on workload and outcome of a public education campaign on early diagnosis and treatment of malignant melanoma in Leicestershire. Br J Dermatology. 1990;122:53–59. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.1990.tb08239.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Pehamberger H, Binder M, Knollmayer S, Wolff K. Immediate effects of a public education campaign on prognostic features of melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatology. 1993;29:106–9. doi: 10.1016/S0190-9622(08)81812-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Buller MK, Goldberg G, Buller DB. Sun Smart Day: A pilot program for photoprotection education. Pediatric Dermatology. 1997;14(4):257–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1470.1997.tb00953.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Girgis A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Tripodi DA, Golding T. Evaluation of interventions to improve solar protection in primary schools. Health Educ Q. 1993;20(2):275–87. doi: 10.1177/109019819302000217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Loescher LJ, Emerson J, Taylor A, et al. Educating preschoolers about sun safety. Am J Public Health. 1995;85(7):939–43. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.85.7.939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Campbell ME, Buckeridge D, Dwyer J, et al. Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Environmental Awareness Interventions. Prepared for the Effective Public Health Practice Project of the Ontario Ministry of Health. Toronto, Ontario: Public Health Research, Education and Development (PHRED) Partnership; 1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]