Educator Beliefs and Organizational Constraints: Factors That Influence Informal Education About Fish Consumption Advisories in a Southeastern US State

Overview

Journal Sustain Environ

Date 2023 Nov 30

PMID 38031579

Authors

Kathleen M Gray

Margaret R Blanchard

Catherine E LePrevost

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

All US states, and many countries around the world, have waterways with environmental health advisories intended to protect individuals from harmful chemicals in fish, yet little is known about how informal science educators, even those who engage anglers along waterways, incorporate advisory information into their educational activities. This study, grounded in environmental health literacy, investigated the practices, knowledge, and beliefs of 24 informal educators housed in varied agencies and organizations in a southeastern US state. Participants described a range of educational activities and identified organizational constraints on their education about fish consumption advisories, which varied by organization type. Their knowledge of relevant environmental health concepts was incomplete, and they described health and teaching beliefs consistent with limited focus on advisory education. Local government and nonprofit educators were well positioned to educate anglers about advisories, due to their freedom to design and deliver instruction and their regular contact with anglers. Educators in wildlife agencies had more contact with anglers and were identified as potential conduits given their interactions, but organizational constraints (such as educators' ability to choose content/pedagogy and conflicting missions of agencies) would need to be addressed.

References

He X, Raymond M, Tomasallo C, Schultz A, Meiman J . Fish consumption and awareness of fish advisories among Burmese refugees: A respondent-driven sampling study in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Environ Res. 2021; 197:110906. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2021.110906. View

Karagas M, Choi A, Oken E, Horvat M, Schoeny R, Kamai E . Evidence on the human health effects of low-level methylmercury exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2012; 120(6):799-806. PMC: 3385440. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1104494. View

Ha E, Basu N, Bose-OReilly S, Dorea J, McSorley E, Sakamoto M . Current progress on understanding the impact of mercury on human health. Environ Res. 2016; 152:419-433. DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.06.042. View

Quaranta J, Spencer G . Using the Health Belief Model to Understand School Nurse Asthma Management. J Sch Nurs. 2015; 31(6):430-40. DOI: 10.1177/1059840515601885. View

Niederdeppe J, Connelly N, Labuer T, Knuth B . Using Theory to Identify Beliefs Associated with Intentions to Follow Fish Consumption Advisories Among Anglers Living in the Great Lakes Region. Risk Anal. 2015; 35(11):1996-2008. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12408. View

Rosenstock I, Strecher V, BECKER M . Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Q. 1988; 15(2):175-83. DOI: 10.1177/109019818801500203. View

Jardine C . Development of a public participation and communication protocol for establishing fish consumption advisories. Risk Anal. 2003; 23(3):461-71. DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00327. View

Driscoll D, Sorensen A, Deerhake M . A multidisciplinary approach to promoting healthy subsistence fish consumption in culturally distinct communities. Health Promot Pract. 2011; 13(2):245-51. DOI: 10.1177/1524839910380156. View

Johnston J, Hoffman K, Wing S, Lowman A . Fish Consumption Patterns and Mercury Advisory Knowledge Among Fishers in the Haw River Basin. N C Med J. 2016; 77(1):9-14. PMC: 4762258. DOI: 10.18043/ncm.77.1.9. View

10.

Orji R, Vassileva J, Mandryk R . Towards an effective health interventions design: an extension of the health belief model. Online J Public Health Inform. 2013; 4(3). PMC: 3615835. DOI: 10.5210/ojphi.v4i3.4321. View

11.

Ramirez-Andreotta M, Brody J, Lothrop N, Loh M, Beamer P, Brown P . Reporting back environmental exposure data and free choice learning. Environ Health. 2016; 15:2. PMC: 4707004. DOI: 10.1186/s12940-015-0080-1. View

12.

Teisl M, Fromberg E, Smith A, Boyle K, Engelberth H . Awake at the switch: improving fish consumption advisories for at-risk women. Sci Total Environ. 2011; 409(18):3257-66. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.05.006. View

13.

Quandt S, Grzywacz J, Talton J, Trejo G, Tapia J, DAgostino Jr R . Evaluating the effectiveness of a lay health promoter-led, community-based participatory pesticide safety intervention with farmworker families. Health Promot Pract. 2012; 14(3):425-32. PMC: 4116736. DOI: 10.1177/1524839912459652. View

14.

Perez H, Sullivan E, Michael K, Harris R . Fish consumption and advisory awareness among the Philadelphia Asian community: a pilot study. J Environ Health. 2012; 74(8):24-8. View

15.

Gray K . From Content Knowledge to Community Change: A Review of Representations of Environmental Health Literacy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018; 15(3). PMC: 5877011. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph15030466. View

16.

LePrevost C, Gray K, Hernandez-Pelletier M, Bouma B, Arellano C, Cope W . Need for improved risk communication of fish consumption advisories to protect maternal and child health: influence of primary informants. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013; 10(5):1720-34. PMC: 3709344. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph10051720. View

17.

Lauber T, Connelly N, Niederdeppe J, Knuth B . Urban anglers in the Great Lakes region: Fish consumption patterns, influences, and responses to advisory messages. Sci Total Environ. 2017; 590-591:495-501. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.02.189. View

18.

Tan M, Ujihara A, Kent L, Hendrickson I . Communicating fish consumption advisories in California: what works, what doesn't. Risk Anal. 2011; 31(7):1095-106. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01559.x. View

19.

Gray K, LePrevost C, Cope W . Anglers' Views on Using Signs to Communicate Fish Consumption Advisories. Fisheries (Bethesda). 2021; 45(10):307-316. PMC: 8297682. DOI: 10.1002/fsh.10463. View

20.

Burger J, McDermott M, Chess C, Bochenek E, Perez-Lugo M, Pflugh K . Evaluating risk communication about fish consumption advisories: efficacy of a brochure versus a classroom lesson in Spanish and English. Risk Anal. 2003; 23(4):791-803. DOI: 10.1111/1539-6924.00356. View