Breathing on the job: investigating predictors of air quality protective actions and information seeking among outdoor workers.

Q2 Social Sciences Journal of Communication in Healthcare Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-21 DOI:10.1080/17538068.2024.2320478
Channing Bice, Ashley A Anderson, Katie M Abrams, Marilee Long
{"title":"Breathing on the job: investigating predictors of air quality protective actions and information seeking among outdoor workers.","authors":"Channing Bice, Ashley A Anderson, Katie M Abrams, Marilee Long","doi":"10.1080/17538068.2024.2320478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Air quality issues, exacerbated by wildfire smoke and excessive ozone that is worsened by climate change, pose significant health risks to outdoor workers, who are often overlooked in regulatory protection and communication efforts. This study examined how outdoor worker demographics, risk perceptions, and efficacy beliefs predict air quality protective actions and information seeking. Additionally, it investigates the sources of information that this population relies on for understanding air quality.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A survey was conducted with 256 outdoor workers in Colorado, a state regularly affected by wildfire smoke and ozone. Measures included demographics, perceived risk, efficacy beliefs, air quality actions, and information seeking behavior.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both perceived risk and efficacy beliefs influenced health-protective actions during poor air quality events. Interestingly, efficacy beliefs were found to be a more reliable predictor of air quality information seeking than perceived risk. The top sources of air quality information among outdoor workers were local news media, The Weather Channel, mobile apps, state public health authorities, and the National Weather Service.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings enhance our understanding of how perceived risk and efficacy beliefs promote health-protective behaviors among outdoor workers. They lay the groundwork for future research and initiatives to improve air quality communication and promote health-protective actions for this population group. Promoting the efficacy of health-protective actions and seeking information are important components of air quality communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":38052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":"214-222"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2024.2320478","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Air quality issues, exacerbated by wildfire smoke and excessive ozone that is worsened by climate change, pose significant health risks to outdoor workers, who are often overlooked in regulatory protection and communication efforts. This study examined how outdoor worker demographics, risk perceptions, and efficacy beliefs predict air quality protective actions and information seeking. Additionally, it investigates the sources of information that this population relies on for understanding air quality.

Method: A survey was conducted with 256 outdoor workers in Colorado, a state regularly affected by wildfire smoke and ozone. Measures included demographics, perceived risk, efficacy beliefs, air quality actions, and information seeking behavior.

Results: Both perceived risk and efficacy beliefs influenced health-protective actions during poor air quality events. Interestingly, efficacy beliefs were found to be a more reliable predictor of air quality information seeking than perceived risk. The top sources of air quality information among outdoor workers were local news media, The Weather Channel, mobile apps, state public health authorities, and the National Weather Service.

Conclusions: These findings enhance our understanding of how perceived risk and efficacy beliefs promote health-protective behaviors among outdoor workers. They lay the groundwork for future research and initiatives to improve air quality communication and promote health-protective actions for this population group. Promoting the efficacy of health-protective actions and seeking information are important components of air quality communication.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
工作中的呼吸:调查户外工作者采取空气质量保护措施和寻求信息的预测因素。
背景:空气质量问题因野火烟雾和气候变化导致的臭氧超标而加剧,给户外工作者带来了巨大的健康风险。本研究探讨了户外工作者的人口统计、风险认知和功效信念如何预测空气质量保护行动和信息寻求。此外,它还调查了该人群了解空气质量所依赖的信息来源:对科罗拉多州的 256 名户外工作者进行了调查,该州经常受到野火烟雾和臭氧的影响。调查内容包括人口统计学、感知风险、功效信念、空气质量行动和信息搜索行为:结果:在空气质量较差的情况下,感知风险和功效信念都会影响健康保护行动。有趣的是,与感知到的风险相比,功效信念对空气质量信息寻求的预测更为可靠。户外工作者最主要的空气质量信息来源是当地新闻媒体、气象频道、移动应用程序、州公共卫生机构和国家气象局:这些发现加深了我们对感知风险和功效信念如何促进户外工作者健康保护行为的理解。这些发现为今后的研究和行动奠定了基础,以改善空气质量交流,促进这一人群的健康保护行动。促进健康保护行动的有效性和寻求信息是空气质量宣传的重要组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Communication in Healthcare
Journal of Communication in Healthcare Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊最新文献
Open access to pathology reports: potential harms and proposed solutions. The promise of AI in healthcare: transforming communication and decision-making for patients. Doctor on call: physician smartphone use during medical consultations. Public health professionals' views on climate change, advocacy, and health. Adaptation in communication technology utilization: caring for individuals with chronic conditions in South Asia during the Covid-19 pandemic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1