Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 91, Issue 2, pp 137–143 | Cite as

A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Environmental Awareness Interventions

  • Monica Campbell
  • David Buckeridge
  • John Dwyer
  • Siu Fong
  • Valerie Mann
  • Otto Sanchez-Sweatman
  • Adam Stevens
  • Lorraine Fung
Article

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Chance GW, Harmsen E. Children are different: Environmental contaminants and children’s health. Can J Public Health 1998;89(Suppl.1):S9–S13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Health Canada and Ontario Ministry of Health. The Health and Environment Handbook for Health Professionals. Prepared by the Great Lakes Health Effects Program (Health Canada) and the Public Health Branch (Ontario Ministry of Health). Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. H46-2/98-211-2E, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Riedel D, Tremblay N, Tompkins E. State of Knowledge Report on Environmental Contaminants and Human Health in the Great Lakes Basin. Great Lakes Health Effects Program, Health Canada. Ottawa, Ontario: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. H46-2/97-214E, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donawho C, Wolf P. Sunburn, sunscreen and melanoma. Current Opinion in Oncology 1996;8(2):159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rice, DC. Neurotoxicity of lead: Commonalities between experimental and epidemiological data. Environ Health Perspect 1996;86(Suppl. 2):337–51.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    McBride, ML. Childhood cancer and environmental contaminants. Can J Public Health 1998;89(Suppl.1):S53–S62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, S52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ontario Ministry of Health. Mandatory Health Programs and Services Guidelines. Toronto, Ontario: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Cat. #2206557, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wahlgren DR, Hovell MF, Meltzer SB, et al. Reduction of environmental tobacco smoke exposure in asthmatic children. Chest 1997;111(1):81–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mayer JA, Slymen DJ, Eckhardt L, et al. Reducing ultraviolet radiation exposure in children. Prev Med 1997;26(4):516–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mermelstein RJ, Riesenberg, LA. Changing knowledge and attitudes about skin cancer risk factors in adolescents. Health Psychol 1992;11(6):371–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Buller MK, Goldberg G, Buller, DB. Sun Smart Day: A pilot program for photoprotection education. Pediatric Dermatology 1997;14(4):257–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Loescher LJ, Emerson J, Taylor A, et al. Educating preschoolers about sun safety. Am J Public Health 1995;85(7):939–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, March 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Monica Campbell
    • 1
  • David Buckeridge
    • 2
  • John Dwyer
    • 3
  • Siu Fong
    • 1
  • Valerie Mann
    • 4
  • Otto Sanchez-Sweatman
    • 5
    • 6
  • Adam Stevens
    • 7
  • Lorraine Fung
    • 3
  1. 1.Health Promotion and Environmental Protection OfficeToronto Public HealthTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Community Medicine Residency Program, Department of Public Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoCanada
  3. 3.Education & ResearchToronto Public HealthCanada
  4. 4.Public Health Research, Education and DevelopmentKingston, Frontenac and Lennox & Addington Health UnitCanada
  5. 5.School of NursingMcMaster UniversityCanada
  6. 6.Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Public Health DepartmentCanada
  7. 7.Brant County Health UnitCanada

Personalised recommendations