Professionals' Perceptions: "Why is Lead Poisoning Prevalent in Lancaster County?"
Lancaster
competing interests
housing status
in-depth interviews
knowledge levels
lead poisoning
professionals, children
Journal
International journal of environmental research and public health
ISSN: 1660-4601
Titre abrégé: Int J Environ Res Public Health
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101238455
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 06 2019
27 06 2019
Historique:
received:
24
05
2019
revised:
23
06
2019
accepted:
26
06
2019
entrez:
30
6
2019
pubmed:
30
6
2019
medline:
21
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The prevalence of lead poisoning in children under the age of six years living in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania continues to be greater than the state-wide prevalence for this age group. This study aims to determine the factors that contribute to the high lead poisoning rates. For this qualitative study, the researchers recruited a convenience sample of professionals providing healthcare and social welfare services in the county. Researchers conducted in-depth interviews with participants. The research team audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed each interview using NVivo 12 software. The 16 interviewed participants identified factors that contribute to high lead poisoning rates including knowledge levels, housing status, and competing interests. Specifically, low knowledge levels, renting as opposed to home ownership, and having competing interests seemed to minimize the attention directed towards preventing lead poisoning. The experts offered recommendations to address the high lead poisoning rates including increasing lead knowledge levels of both community members and landlords, through creating and distributing health promotion material, enacting policies to empower renters, and systematically collaborating to streamline lead poisoning related information and services. Findings provide insights to factors that Lancaster can address to achieve a decrease in lead poisoning rates. This study provides information that can be utilized by public health professionals to develop appropriate interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The prevalence of lead poisoning in children under the age of six years living in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania continues to be greater than the state-wide prevalence for this age group. This study aims to determine the factors that contribute to the high lead poisoning rates.
METHODS
For this qualitative study, the researchers recruited a convenience sample of professionals providing healthcare and social welfare services in the county. Researchers conducted in-depth interviews with participants. The research team audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed each interview using NVivo 12 software.
RESULTS
The 16 interviewed participants identified factors that contribute to high lead poisoning rates including knowledge levels, housing status, and competing interests. Specifically, low knowledge levels, renting as opposed to home ownership, and having competing interests seemed to minimize the attention directed towards preventing lead poisoning. The experts offered recommendations to address the high lead poisoning rates including increasing lead knowledge levels of both community members and landlords, through creating and distributing health promotion material, enacting policies to empower renters, and systematically collaborating to streamline lead poisoning related information and services.
CONCLUSIONS
Findings provide insights to factors that Lancaster can address to achieve a decrease in lead poisoning rates. This study provides information that can be utilized by public health professionals to develop appropriate interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31252687
pii: ijerph16132281
doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132281
pmc: PMC6651429
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
J Environ Health. 2013 Jul-Aug;76(1):28-36
pubmed: 23947286
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1998 Dec;152(12):1213-8
pubmed: 9856432
J Community Health. 2017 Dec;42(6):1255-1266
pubmed: 28528525
Public Health Nurs. 1997 Jun;14(3):169-82
pubmed: 9203842
BMC Public Health. 2013 Dec 05;13:1138
pubmed: 24308610
Public Health Rep. 2005 Jan-Feb;120(1):25-30
pubmed: 15736328
Prev Med. 2007 Mar;44(3):254-9
pubmed: 17196642
Pediatrics. 1956 Dec;18(6):943-58
pubmed: 13378923
Adv Pediatr. 2016 Aug;63(1):255-80
pubmed: 27426904
Pediatrics. 2007 Mar;119(3):e650-8
pubmed: 17332184
Pediatrics. 1998 Feb;101(2):264-71
pubmed: 9445502
Ambul Pediatr. 2004 Jul-Aug;4(4):344-7
pubmed: 15264949
Environ Health Perspect. 2002 Oct;110(10):A599-606
pubmed: 12361941
Public Health Rep. 2005 May-Jun;120(3):305-10
pubmed: 16134573
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001 May;155(5):579-82
pubmed: 11343501
Ind Health. 2004 Oct;42(4):440-5
pubmed: 15540628
JAMA. 2017 Mar 28;317(12):1244-1251
pubmed: 28350927
Health Educ Behav. 2015 Jun;42(3):409-21
pubmed: 25558876
J Health Commun. 2007 Dec;12(8):771-86
pubmed: 18030641
Environ Health. 2015 Apr 07;14:21
pubmed: 25889033
New Solut. 2010;20(3):317-36
pubmed: 20943475