Search

Environmental health literacy (EHL) is developing as a framework that can inform educational interventions designed to facilitate individual and collective action to protect health, yet EHL measurement poses several challenges. While some studies have measured environmental health knowledge resulting from interventions, few have incorporated skills and self-efficacy. In this study, a process-focused EHL instrument was developed, using the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy instrument as a model and tailoring it for the context of private well contamination with toxic metals. Forty-seven (47) participants, including undergraduate students and residents of communities with contaminated well water, piloted a prototype EHL instrument alongside NVS. Results suggested a moderate degree of correlation between NVS and the EHL prototype, and significant differences in scores were observed between students and residents. Responses to a self-efficacy survey, tailored for drinking water contaminated with arsenic, revealed significant differences between students and residents on items related to cost and distance. In response to open-ended questions, participants identified a range of potential environmental contaminants in drinking water and deemed varied information sources as reliable. This study highlights differences in knowledge and self-efficacy among students and residents and raises questions about the adequacy of EHL assessments that mimic formal education approaches.

Objective: This paper examines infrastructural and route environment correlates of cycling injury risk in Britain for commuters riding in the morning peak. Methods: The study uses a case-crossover design which controls for exposure. Control sites from modelled cyclist routes (matched on intersection status) were compared with sites where cyclists were injured. Conditional logistic regression for matched case–control groups was used to compare characteristics of control and injury sites. Results: High streets (defined by clustering of retail premises) raised injury odds by 32%. Main (Class A or primary) roads were riskier than other road types, with injury odds twice that for residential roads. Wider roads, and those with lower gradients increased injury odds. Guard railing raised injury odds by 18%, and petrol stations or car parks by 43%. Bus lanes raised injury odds by 84%. As in other studies, there was a ‘safety in numbers’ effect from more cyclists. Contrary to other analysis, including two recent studies in London, we did not find a protective effect from cycle infrastructure and the presence of painted cycle lanes raised injury odds by 54%. At intersections, both standard and mini roundabouts were associated with injury odds several times higher than other intersections. Presence of traffic signals, with or without an Advanced Stop Line (‘bike box’), had no impact on injury odds. For a cyclist on a main road, intersections with minor roads were riskier than intersections with other main roads. Conclusions: Typical cycling environments in Britain put cyclists at risk, and infrastructure must be improved, particularly on busy main roads, high streets, and bus routes.