The 131st Annual Meeting (November 15-19, 2003) of APHA

Abstract #74216

Dolores J. Severtson, MS, RN, School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 600 Highland Avenue, K6/380 CSC, Madison, WI 53792, (608) 263-5315, djsevert@students.wisc.edu

The purpose of this study is to understand how people have responded to a well testing program offered to rural Wisconsin residents in an area of the state where 20% of private wells have arsenic levels over 10 ug/L. The well test program was offered from 2000 – 2002; a time when the arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) was revised from 50 to 10 ug/L. The common sense model has shown that people process health threat information to formulate personal schemas or representations that guide behavioral and emotional responses to health threats. Other factors that may influence responses to risk information include: perceived credibility of agencies that disseminate risk information, perceived credibility of the newly adopted MCL, drinking water source preferences, and the perceived opinions and behavior of friends and relatives. A survey was mailed to all households that tested their wells through the program had an arsenic level: a) > 10 ug/L (N = 656), b) 5 – 9 ug/L (N = 420); and random samples of households with wells from c) 1 – 4 ug/L (N = 100) and d) those who didn’t test their well through the program (N = 250). Descriptive statistics and significant differences among these groups will be described for the study variables.

Learning Objectives:

Participants will be able to:
• identify 2 advantages of a theory-based evaluation method, and,
• describe major differences in the use of arsenic risk information, risk representations, water safety judgments, and protective behavior among participants with varying arsenic levels.

Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.