Foxes caught in the same snare: a methodological review of social radon studies

Figures & data

Table 1. Search string in web of science format.

#1 (Radon) #2 (((field OR case OR comparative OR cohort OR archival) NEAR/2 stud*) OR ((network OR content OR sentiment OR meta OR framework OR media OR discourse OR morphological OR text* OR conversation OR narrative) NEAR/2 analysis) OR ((systematic OR meta) NEAR/0 review) OR ((mixed OR mental OR mixed OR delphi OR q OR economic) NEAR/2 method*) OR “delphi techniq*” OR “focus group*” OR “repertory grid” OR “analytic induction” OR “life history*” OR historiography OR “socio mapping” OR “feeling thermometer” OR “cybermethod*” OR “participatory action” OR bibliograph* OR questionnaire* OR “secondary data” OR “e-research” OR “memory work” OR interview* OR observation* OR ethnography OR phenomenolog* OR RCT OR “randomized controlled trial*” OR workshop OR “public opinion” OR panel* OR omnibus OR poll OR triangulation OR hermeneutic) #3 (survey* or experiment*) #4 (public* OR citizen* OR participant* OR respondent* OR resident* OR person* OR stakeholder*)

Figure 1. Flowchart of the review process.

Table 2. Taxonomy for content analysis.

Coding Scheme
Dimension	Component	Code
Research Design	Overall Design	Quantitative, Qualitative, Mixed
	Time-frame	Cross-Sectional, Longitudinal
	Method	Experiment, Survey, Interview, Focus Group, Content Analysis, Other
	Sample Characteristics	Type of Sample Sample Strategy Sample Size
	Design Context	Continent Level (local, regional national, international)
Construct measurement	Validity test for quantitative studies	Factorial, Construct
	Reliability test for quantitative studies	Test-Retest, Internal Consistency
	Types for Qualitative Studies	Interrater, Triangulation, Protocol pre-test
Data Analysis	Analysis Techniques	Descriptive, Association, (CO-)Variance, Regression, Network Analysis, Structural Equation Modelling, Content Analysis, Discourse Analysis, Narrative Analysis, Comparative Methods, Thematic Analysis, Citizen Science, Other, Not Reported
	Level of Analysis	Individual, Group, National

Table 3. Summary of study topics.

Study Topic
	First Period N = 59 articles	Second PeriodN = 42 articles	Third PeriodN = 53 articles	Total^4N = 154 articles
Cognitive
Knowledge	36 (61%)	27 (64%)	35 (66%)	98 (64%)
Perception	45 (76%)	30 (71%)	32 (60%)	107 (69%)
Behavioural
Testing	46 (78%)	24 (57%)	38 (72%)	108 (70%)
Remediation	27 (46%)	14 (33%)	15 (28%)	56 (36%)
Behaviour as DV*	16 (27%)	4 (10%)	15 (28%)	35 (23%)

* Dependent variable.

Table 4. Summary of study design.

Study Design
	First Period N = 59 articles	Second Period N = 42 articles	Third Period N = 53 articles	Total N = 154 articles
Overall design
Quantitative Explanation	30 (51%)	16 (38%)	22 (42%)	68 (44%)
Quantitative Description	18 (31%)	19 (45%)	21 (40%)	59 (38%)
Qualitative	5 (8%)	5 (12%)	6 (11%)	16 (10%)
Mixed	6 (10%)	2 (5%)	3 (6%)	11 (7%)
Method
Survey	38 (64%)	30 (71%)	38 (72%)	108 (70%)
Experiment	12 (20%)	6 (14%)	7 (13%)	24 (16%)
Interview	8 (14%)	5 (12%)	3 (6%)	16 (10%)
Focus Group	2 (3%)	4 (10%)	1 (2%)	7 (5%)
Content Analysis	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	3 (2%)
Other	3 (5%)	4 (10%)	4 (8%)	10 (6%)
Time frame
Cross-sectional	41 (69%)	32 (76%)	47 (89%)	122 (79%)
Longitudinal	18 (31%)	10 (24%)	6 (11%)	32 (21%)

Table 5. Summary of sample characteristics.

Sample Characteristics
	First Period N = 59 articles	Second Period N = 42 articles	Third Period N = 53 articles	Total N = 154 articles
Sample Type
Residential population	57 (96%)	33 (79%)	39 (74%)	129 (84%)
Professional Population	6 (10%)	9 (21%)	9 (17%)	24 (16%)
School Population	3 (5%)	6 (14%)	12 (23%)	21 (14%)
Specific Population	1 (2%)	3 (7%)	6 (11%)	10 (6%)
Sample Strategy
Probability Sampling	27 (46%)	16 (38%)	15 (28%)	59 (38%)
Non-Probability Sampling	34 (58%)	33 (79%)	40 (75%)	105 (68%)
Sample size
Average for Quantitative	2554	2681	790	2008
Average for Qualitative	139	45	175	120

Table 6. Summary of context characteristics.

Context Characteristics
	First Period N = 59 articles	Second Period N = 42 articles	Third Period N = 53 articles	Total N = 154 articles
Continent
North America	54 (92%)	25 (60%)	31 (58%)	110 (71%)
Europe	5 (8%)	14 (33%)	17 (32%)	36 (23%)
Asia	0 (0%)	3 (7%)	5 (9%)	8 (5%)
Context level
Local	24 (41%)	19 (45%)	24 (45%)	67 (44%)
Regional	25 (42%)	14 (33%)	17 (32%)	56 (36%)
National	10 (17%)	9 (21%)	11 (21%)	30 (19%)
International	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	1 (2%)	1 (1%)

Table 7. Summary of construct measurement reports.

Construct Measurement
	First Period N = 59 articles	Second Period N = 42 articles	Third Period N = 53 articles	Total N = 154 articles
Validity
Factorial validity (Explanatory)	1	1	2	4
Construct validity (Confirmatory)	1	2	1	4
Reliability
Test-Retest	0	0	0	0
Internal Consistency	5	3	8	16
Measurement for Qualitative Studies
Interrater Agreement	1	4	1	6
Triangulation	0	1	0	1
Protocol pre-test	1	0	0	1

Table 8. Summary of data analysis techniques.

Data Analysis
	First Period N = 59 articles	Second Period N = 42 articles	Third Period N = 53 articles	Total N = 154 articles
Analysis Techniques
Descriptive	15 (25%)	10 (24%)	12 (23%)	37 (24%)
Association Chi-square (37) Fisher’s exact (3) Pearson correlation (6) spearman’s p (3) Gamma correlation (2) Intra-class correlation (2) Kendall correlation (1) non-specified correlation (15)	25 (42%)	17 (40%)	27 (51%)	69 (45%)
(CO-)Variance T-test (24) ANOVA (12) MANOVA (2) ANCOVA (1) Mann-Whitney U (5) Kruskall-Wallis test (9) Wilcoxon (2) Tukey’s test (2)	19 (32%)	13 (31%)	25 (47%)	57 (37%)
Regression Logistic regression (38) Linear regression (25) Binominal regression (4) Poisson regression (1) Multilevel regression (2) Probit regression (2) Tobit modem (2) Multiple discriminant analysis (1)	34 (58%)	16 (38%)	25 (47%)	75 (49%)
Network Analysis	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Structural Equation Modelling	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Content Analysis	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	2 (5%)	2 (2%)
Discourse Analysis	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	0 (0%)
Thematic Analysis	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	3 (7%)	3 (2%)
Comparative Method (Grounded Theory)	1 (2%)	1 (2%)	0 (0%)	2 (2%)
Citizen Science	0 (0%)	1 (2%)	3 (7%)	4 (3%)
Other	1 (2%)	4 (10%)	0 (0%)	5 (3%)
Not reported	8 (14%)	4 (10%)	2 (5%)	13 (10%)
Level of Analysis
Individual	34 (58%)	25 (60%)	27 (51%)	86 (56%)
Group	23 (39%)	15 (36%)	25 (47%)	64 (42%)
National	2 (3%)	2 (5%)	2 (4%)	6 (4%)

Table

Construct	Definition	Variable
Knowledge (n = 98)	Measure of people’s consciousness (awareness) or the nature and risk of radon, health consequences and/or their diffuse or specific level and understanding of radon (knowledge) at the present time based on (factual) information or experience (Trevethan 2017), as well as the skill to cognitively process.	Knowledge personal Knowledge societal Awareness Self-efficacy Confidence in own knowledge
Perception (n = 107)	Measure of people’s beliefs, attitudes, judgments, and feelings, as well as the wider social or cultural values and dispositions that people adopt, toward hazards and their benefits (Hevey 2017).	Acceptability of risk Treat perception personal Threat perception societal Severity Susceptibility Emotional response Salience of risk Trust in authorities Synergistic risk Relative risk
Testing (n = 108)	Measure of people’s present or future action(s) regarding detection of indoor radon concentrations, as well as of direct barriers and/or facilitators to those actions.	Actions in past Intended actions Perceived ease/difficulty Reasons for (not) testing
Remediation (n = 56)	Measure of people’s present or future action(s) regarding reduction of indoor radon concentrations, as well as of direct barriers and/or facilitators to those actions.	Actions in past Intended actions Perceived ease/difficulty Reasons for (not) remediating

Table

#1 (radioactiv*) AND ((natural NEAR/1 (radiation OR “radioactive material”)) OR tenorm OR residue OR remainder OR leftover OR waste OR oil OR gas OR water OR phosphate* OR fuel* OR geothermal OR building* OR “flying ash” OR mining OR mine OR “NORM industries” OR “building material*” OR “alum shale” OR (environment* NEAR/0 remediation)) #2 (((field OR case OR comparative OR cohort OR archival) NEAR/2 stud*) OR ((network OR content OR sentiment OR meta OR framework OR media OR discourse OR morphological OR text* OR conversation OR narrative) NEAR/2 analysis) OR ((systematic OR meta) NEAR/0 review) OR ((mixed OR mental OR mixed OR delphi OR q OR economic) NEAR/2 method*) OR “delphi techniq*” OR “focus group*” OR “repertory grid” OR “analytic induction” OR “life history*” OR historiography OR “socio mapping” OR “feeling thermometer” OR “cybermethod*” OR “participatory action” OR bibliograph* OR questionnaire* OR “secondary data” OR “e-research” OR “memory work” OR interview* OR observation* OR ethnography OR phenomenolog* OR RCT OR “randomized controlled trial*” OR workshop OR “public opinion” OR panel* OR omnibus OR poll OR triangulation OR hermeneutic) #3 (survey* or experiment*) #4 (public* OR citizen* OR participant* OR respondent* OR resident* OR person* OR stakeholder*)

Trevethan, R. 2017. “Deconstructing and Assessing Knowledge and Awareness in Public Health Research.” Frontiers in Public Health 5: 194. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00194.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hevey, D. 2017. “Radon Risk and Remediation: A Psychological Perspective.” Frontiers in Public Health 5 (63): 63. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2017.00063.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar