title: Householder status and residence type as correlates of radon awareness and testing behaviors.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The primary aim of this research was to assess radon awareness and testing across 2 housing types.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional prevalence study with time trends. National, probabilistic sample of 18,138 and 29,632 respondents from the 1994 and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys, respectively.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Odds ratio (OR) estimates confirmed that occupants of single family homes/townhomes were twice as likely to have ever heard of radon (1994: OR=2.18; confidence intervals [CI]=2.01-2.36) (1998: OR=2.26; CI=2.09-2.44) and also more likely to know if their household air had been tested for radon (1994: OR=2.04; CI=1.57-2.65) (1998: OR=1.38; CI=1.19-1.59) as occupants of apartments/condominiums. Time trend analyses revealed that radon awareness improved from 69.4% to 70.7% and home testing among those with knowledge of radon increased from 9.7% to 15.5% over the 4-year period.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Housing type provided fairly stable estimates of radon awareness and testing. Findings demonstrate that housing status may be a useful variable to differentiate risk for radon awareness and testing. Public health nurses should consider their client's housing type when assessing families for environmental risks.
authors.affiliation: Sherrick Hall, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA. llarsson@montana.edu
authors.forename: Laura S
authors.initials: LS
authors.lastname: Larsson
authors.forename: Wade G
authors.initials: WG
authors.lastname: Hill
authors.forename: Tamara
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Odom-Maryon
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Yu
mesh_terms: D001364:Awareness; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D006798:Housing; D007407:Interviews as Topic; D016017:Odds Ratio; D011886:Radon / Q000032:analysis*; D012923:Social Class
chemical_list: D011886:Radon
references.citation: JAMA. 1987 Aug 7;258(5):668-72
references.pmid: 3612990
references.citation: Health Phys. 1991 May;60(5):631-42
references.pmid: 2019494
references.citation: J Nucl Med. 1994 Feb;35(2):368-85
references.pmid: 8295012
references.citation: Risk Anal. 2006 Apr;26(2):353-68
references.pmid: 16573626
references.citation: Health Psychol. 1992;11(3):170-80
references.pmid: 1618171
references.citation: Public Health Nurs. 2006 Sep-Oct;23(5):392-9
references.pmid: 16961559
references.citation: Health Psychol. 1998 Sep;17(5):445-53
references.pmid: 9776003
references.citation: Risk Anal. 1998 Oct;18(5):575-84
references.pmid: 9853393
references.citation: Can J Public Health. 2002 Sep-Oct;93 Suppl 1:S45-51
references.pmid: 12425175
references.citation: Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2004;112(2):277-86
references.pmid: 15353606
references.citation: Sci Total Environ. 2004 Jul 26;328(1-3):41-53
references.pmid: 15207572
references.citation: Occup Environ Med. 1996 Oct;53(10):697-702
references.pmid: 8943835
references.citation: Am J Public Health. 1995 Apr;85(4):528-34
references.pmid: 7702117
references.citation: Health Phys. 1999 Oct;77(4):403-9
references.pmid: 10492346