Research Communication & Engagement Following an Environmental Disaster
Background: The study was conducted in response to (1) the National Institutes of Health call: (a) to study methods and strategies to engage and inform the public regarding health science, and (b) to increase scientists’ understanding of and outreach to the public, and (2) the lack of knowledge about research engagement in rural communities in the aftermath of an environmental disaster. Three conceptual approaches framed the study: (a) cardinal rules of risk communication/risk communication model, (b) community-based participatory research principles, and, (c) rural nursing theory.
Methods: Case study research methods were used. Participants were English proficient adult residents of a Superfund site and surrounding rural communities. Descriptive statistics, principal component factor analysis, and regression analysis were used to address study aims.
Results: Of the 120 participants, most were women (66%); aged 54.4 years; with 14 years education. Most (56%) had been screened for asbestos-related disease (ARD) and 23% were diagnosed. Fifty percent participated in local research; 70% were aware of local research while 28% were not. Analysis of attitudes toward researchers and influences to participate in research resulted in four factors accounting for 62% of the variance. Attitudes loaded on a single factor; the influence to participate fell into three factors. The maximum correlation of attitudes and influences was with the first influence factor (r = 0.29) (identity of researcher, asked to participate, topic/length of study). The three influence factors were more strongly correlated with each other, r’s = .39 (factor 2 with 3), .52 (factor 2 with 4) and .45 (factors 3 with 4). Factor scores were used as predictor variables to examine the relationships among attitudes and influences to participate in research. Desire to be invited to participate. The regression model accounted for 9% of the variance, p = .05. The attitudes factor was the only significant predictor (b = .44, se = .15, p < .01). Having participated in local research. None of the four factors were significant predictors of research participation. Research benefits the community. The regression model accounted for 28% of the variance in responses to this question, p < .01. The attitudes factor was a significant predictor (b = .38, se = .10, p < .01), as was the third influence factor (b = .27, se = .11, p < .02 (study is perceived as worthwhile, or helped the community, oneself, or family). ARD screening. Logistic regression found a significant overall model for having been screened for ARD, with the third influence factor showing a significantly positive effect (p < .01).
Implications: Attitudes towards researchers, the perception of research as beneficial to the community/individual/family, and screening for disease are important factors to consider when soliciting research participants in rural communities effected by an environmental disaster.