of the results packet using a Likert scale from very easy to very dicult and 2) perceived helpfulness of additional materials that were provided (e.g., contaminant fact sheets, defi- nitions of terms). Residents also were asked to recall any exceedances in their well tests and if they had taken action in response to well test results. If the residents responded armatively, they were asked to describe the action(s) taken. Results Of the participants in the Well Empowered pilot study, 14 returned a complete evalua- tion survey and all had exceedances of some type. These respondents were representative of the larger pilot study sample in terms of demographics. Most respondents were White, self-identified as male, were >65 years, had at least some college education, and earned >$40,000 annually. Approximately 80% lived at their current residence for >10 years. Approximately 50% had not tested their wells in the 2 years prior. Evaluation survey responses suggested that respondents found pictorial results and tabular results easy to understand. For water test results, 11 respondents rated their understanding of the two formats: 9 (82%) indicated that the pictorial results were “very easy to understand” and 7 (64%) indicated the table format was “very easy to understand.” For soil test results, 9 respon- dents rated their understanding of the two formats, with 100% ( n = 9) indicating that the pictorial results were “very easy to understand” and 7 (78%) indicating that the table format was “very easy to understand.” Approximately 93% of respondents rated the supplementary materials (i.e., defini- tions of terms and contaminant fact sheets for exceedances) as “very helpful.” A total of 9 respondents attended the com- munity meeting, along with approximately 20 other residents, and most respondents (89%) described the community presenta- tion as “very easy to understand.” During the community meeting, participants asked questions of the research team, with a sub- set of questions focused on how to interpret exceedances of state health screening levels or the state groundwater standard. Attend- ees also sought guidance in determining what actions they should take based on their results.
FIGURE 3
Example of a Slide Used During a Community Meeting to Present Community-Wide Well Water Test Results for a Single Contaminant
Arsenic Community Summary (39 samples) Range: 0.01–25.51 ppb
50
45
40
= Do notdrink your water!
35
30
25
20
15
EPA MCL 10 ppb
10
5
0
Note. EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; MCL = maximum contaminant level.
FIGURE 4
Recalled Versus Actual Exceedances of Federal and State Standards in Well Empowered Test Results
25
21
20
15
10
9
7
5
5
0
State Standard
Federal Standard
Actual Exceedances
R ecalled Exceedances
results as needed. Residents who were unable to attend the meeting received their results via mail, with interpretation support from the project team as needed.
Within 90 days of packet distribution, an evaluation survey was sent to each partici- pant. Respondents were asked to describe 1) their ease in understanding each component
11
April 2023 • Journal of Environmental Health
Powered by FlippingBook