Communicating radon risk via a smartphone app: a pilot intervention study

Short-Term vs. Long-Term: A Critical Review of Indoor Radon Measurement Techniques

Radon is a known carcinogen, and the accurate assessment of indoor levels is essential for effective mitigation strategies. While long-term testing provides the most reliable data, short-term testing (STT) offers a quicker and more cost-effective alternative. This review evaluated the accuracy of STT in predicting annual radon averages and compared testing strategies in Europe (where long-term measurements are common) and the United States (where STT is prevalent). Twenty (20) studies were systematically identified through searches in scientific databases and the grey literature, focusing on STT accuracy and radon management. This review revealed several factors that influence the accuracy of STT. Most studies recommended a minimum four-day test for initial screening, but accuracy varied with radon levels. For low levels (<75 Bq/m3), a one-week STT achieved high confidence (>95%) in predicting annual averages. However, accuracy decreased for moderate levels (approximately 50% success rate), necessitating confirmation with longer testing periods (3 months). High radon levels made STT unsuitable due to significant fluctuations. Seasonality also played a role, with winter months providing a more representative picture of annual radon averages. STT was found to be a useful method for screening low-risk areas with low radon concentrations. However, its limitations were evident in moderate- and high-level scenarios. While a minimum of four days was recommended, longer testing periods (3 months or more) were crucial for achieving reliable results, particularly in areas with potential for elevated radon exposure. This review suggests the need for further research to explore the possibility of harmonizing radon testing protocols between Europe and the United States.

When citizen science meets radon building diagnosis: Synthesis of a French pilot project developed in the framework of the European RadoNorm research project

As part of the European RadoNorm research project, citizen science pilot projects focusing on the management of radon risk in houses have been implemented in four countries. This article describes the methodological basis, the development and the results of the French pilot project. Building on an initial review of existing literature, the pilot project aims to frame a 'participatory approach' aligned with the standards and recognized practices of citizen science. Particular attention was given to the management of data and the inclusion of ethical considerations. The focal point of the project was the process of radon building diagnosis which is supposed to be carried out whenever (high) radon concentrations are measured and should be prerequisite to mitigation works. As experience shows, however, this diagnosis is hardly implemented in France. To help remedy this situation, the pilot project recruited citizens already aware about radon from Pays Vesoul Val-de-Saône (East of France) to test an existing online self-evaluation guide for radon diagnosis, report on their operational experience and meet with radon/building experts. This enabled citizens to contribute to improvements in form and content to the guide and to ensure that it would be better fit for purpose. Comparison of the guide with experts' practices offered additional perspectives on what building diagnosis should entail. The pilot project produced rich and high-quality data that will nurture the evolution of the guide. The project demonstrated both the viability and the utility of applying the citizen science approach to radon post-measurement phases, with measurable benefits in bridging knowledge gaps and in encouraging behavioural changes. The results of using a citizen science approach in the field of radon management and research are encouraging, and they far outweigh the challenges involved in the implementation.

Comparing Communication Methods to Increase Radon Knowledge and Home Testing: A Randomized Controlled Trial in a High-Radon City

INTRODUCTION

Exposure to residential radon is a preventable cause of cancer. Prevention requires testing, but the percentage of homes that have been tested is small. One reason for the low testing rates may be that printed brochures fail to motivate people to obtain and return a radon test.

METHODS

We developed a radon app for smartphones that contained the same information as printed brochures. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial that compared the app to brochures in a population comprised largely of homeowners. Cognitive endpoints included radon knowledge, attitudes toward testing, perceived severity and susceptibility to radon, and response and self-efficacy. Behavioral endpoints were participants' requests for a free radon test and the return of the test to the lab. Participants (N = 116) were residents of Grand Forks, North Dakota, a city with one of the nation's highest radon levels. Data were analyzed by general linear models and logistic regression.

RESULTS

Participants in both conditions showed significant increases in radon knowledge (p < 0.001), perceived susceptibility (p < 0.001), and self-efficacy (p = 0.004). There was a significant interaction, with app users showing greater increases. After controlling for income, app users were three times more likely to request a free radon test. However, contrary to expectation, app users were 70% less likely to return it to the lab (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings confirm the superiority of smartphones in stimulating radon test requests. We speculate that the advantage of brochures in promoting test returns may be due to their ability to serve as physical reminders.

Interventions to promote home radon testing: A randomized clinical trial of a smartphone app vs. printed brochures

Radon is a preventable cause of lung cancer, but the percentage of homes tested for radon is low. We previously developed a smartphone app that informs users about radon and allows them to request a free radon test. Here we conducted a randomized, controlled trial comparing the radon app versus printed brochures on radon knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, including the proportion of participants requesting radon tests. Participants (N = 138) were undergraduates at a midwestern university. Data were analyzed by t-tests, general linear models, and logistic regression. App users showed significantly greater increases in radon knowledge (p = 0.010) and self-efficacy (p < 0.001) and requested tests three times more often than brochure recipients (41.4% vs. 13.2%, p < 0.001). However, the rate of test usage in each condition was low, ~3%. In conclusion, the radon app markedly outperformed brochures in increasing knowledge and requests for radon tests. Future work should focus on methods to increase test usage.