Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Smoking and Nicotine Detoxification | Research

A scoping review of wildfire smoke risk communications: issues, gaps, and recommendations

Authors: Morgan H. Vien, Susan L. Ivey, Hollynd Boyden, Stephanie Holm, Linda Neuhauser

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Wildfire smoke exposure has become a growing public health concern, as megafires and fires at the wildland urban interface increase in incidence and severity. Smoke contains many pollutants that negatively impact health and is linked to a number of health complications and chronic diseases. Communicating effectively with the public, especially at-risk populations, to reduce their exposure to this environmental pollutant has become a public health priority.
Although wildfire smoke risk communication research has also increased in the past decade, best practice guidance is limited, and most health communications do not adhere to health literacy principles: readability, accessibility, and actionability. This scoping review identifies peer-reviewed studies about wildfire smoke risk communications to identify gaps in research and evaluation of communications and programs that seek to educate the public.

Methods

Four hundred fifty-one articles were identified from Web of Science and PubMed databases. After screening, 21 articles were included in the final sample for the abstraction process and qualitative thematic analysis. Ten articles were based in the US, with the other half in Australia, Canada, Italy, and other countries. Fifteen articles examined communication materials and messaging recommendations. Eight papers described communication delivery strategies. Eleven articles discussed behavior change. Six articles touched on risk communications for vulnerable populations; findings were limited and called for increasing awareness and prioritizing risk communications for at-risk populations.

Results

This scoping review found limited studies describing behavior change to reduce wildfire smoke exposure, characteristics of effective communication materials and messaging, and communication delivery strategies. Literature on risk communications, dissemination, and behavior change for vulnerable populations was even more limited.

Conclusions

Recommendations include providing risk communications that are easy-to-understand and adapted to specific needs of at-risk groups. Communications should provide a limited number of messages that include specific actions for avoiding smoke exposure. Effective communications should use mixed media formats and a wide variety of dissemination strategies. There is a pressing need for more intervention research and effectiveness evaluation of risk communications about wildfire smoke exposure, and more development and dissemination of risk communications for both the general public and vulnerable populations.
Literature
1.
Walsh EI, Sargent G, Cevik-Compiegne B, Roberts M, Palfrey N, Gooyers-Bourke L, et al. Bushfire smoke and children’s health—exploring a communication gap. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19):12436.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
2.
Cowie CT, Wheeler AJ, Tripovich JS, Porta-Cubas A, Dennekamp M, Vardoulakis S, et al. Policy implications for protecting health from the hazards of fire smoke. A panel discussion report from the workshop landscape fire smoke: protecting health in an era of escalating fire risk. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(11):5702.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
NAS, Engineering, and Medicine. Implications of the California wildfires for health, communities, and preparedness: proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2020. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17226/​25622. Cited 2023 Apr 24.
4.
Burke M, Driscoll A, Heft-Neal S, Xue J, Burney J, Wara M. The changing risk and burden of wildfire in the United States. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118(2):e2011048118.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Fadadu RP, Grimes B, Jewell NP, Vargo J, Young AT, Abuabara K, et al. Association of wildfire air pollution and health care use for atopic dermatitis and itch. JAMA Dermatol. 2021;157(6):658–66.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Adetona O, Reinhardt TE, Domitrovich J, Broyles G, Adetona AM, Kleinman MT, et al. Review of the health effects of wildland fire smoke on wildland firefighters and the public. Inhal Toxicol. 2016;28(3):95–139.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Holm SM, Miller MD, Balmes JR. Health effects of wildfire smoke in children and public health tools: a narrative review. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2021;31(1):1–20.PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
Liu Y, Austin E, Xiang J, Gould T, Larson T, Seto E. Health impact assessment of PM2.5 attributable mortality from the September 2020 Washington State wildfire smoke episode. MedRxiv Prepr Serv Health Sci. 2020:2020.09.19.20197921.
10.
Liu JC, Pereira G, Uhl SA, Bravo MA, Bell ML. A systematic review of the physical health impacts from non-occupational exposure to wildfire smoke. Environ Res. 2015;136:120–32.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Korsiak J, Pinault L, Christidis T, Burnett RT, Abrahamowicz M, Weichenthal S. Long-term exposure to wildfires and cancer incidence in Canada: a population-based observational cohort study. Lancet Planet Health. 2022;6(5):e400–9.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Reid CE, Brauer M, Johnston FH, Jerrett M, Balmes JR, Elliott CT. Critical review of health impacts of wildfire smoke exposure. Environ Health Perspect. 2016;124(9):1334–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
14.
Chen G, Guo Y, Yue X, Tong S, Gasparrini A, Bell ML, et al. Mortality risk attributable to wildfire-related PM2·5 pollution: a global time series study in 749 locations. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(9):e579–87.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Yuan L, Zhang Y, Gao Y, Tian Y. Maternal fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure and adverse birth outcomes: an updated systematic review based on cohort studies. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2019;26(14):13963–83.CrossRef
16.
Murphy VE, Karmaus W, Mattes J, Brew BK, Collison A, Holliday E, et al. Exposure to stress and air pollution from bushfires during pregnancy: could epigenetic changes explain effects on the offspring? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(14):7465.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Amjad S, Chojecki D, Osornio-Vargas A, Ospina MB. Wildfire exposure during pregnancy and the risk of adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review. Environ Int. 2021;156:106644.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Humphreys A, Walker EG, Bratman GN, Errett NA. What can we do when the smoke rolls in? An exploratory qualitative analysis of the impacts of rural wildfire smoke on mental health and wellbeing, and opportunities for adaptation. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):41.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Ducy EM, Stough LM. Psychological effects of the 2017 California wildfires on children and youth with disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2021;114:103981.PubMedCrossRef
20.
21.
Oliveira M, Slezakova K, Delerue-Matos C, Pereira MC, Morais S. Children environmental exposure to particulate matter and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and biomonitoring in school environments: a review on indoor and outdoor exposure levels, major sources and health impacts. Environ Int. 2019;124:180–204.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Khreis H, Kelly C, Tate J, Parslow R, Lucas K, Nieuwenhuijsen M. Exposure to traffic-related air pollution and risk of development of childhood asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Int. 2017;100:1–31.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Slavik CE, Philipsborn R, Peters E. Educating families about the impacts of wildfire smoke on children’s health: opportunities for healthcare professionals. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2023;7(1):e002187.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
24.
25.
Adu MK, Agyapong B, Agyapong VIO. Children’s psychological reactions to wildfires: a review of recent literature. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2023;25(11):603–16.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Foo D, Heo S, Stewart R, Dhamrait G, Choi HM, Song Y, et al. Wildfire smoke exposure during pregnancy and perinatal, obstetric, and early childhood health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Res. 2023;241(117527).
27.
Berberian AG, Gonzalez DJX, Cushing LJ. Racial disparities in climate change-related health effects in the United States. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2022;9(3):451–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Davies IP, Haugo RD, Robertson JC, Levin PS. The unequal vulnerability of communities of color to wildfire. Jones JA, editor. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0205825.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
30.
Steelman TA, McCaffrey S. Best practices in risk and crisis communication: implications for natural hazards management. Nat Hazards. 2013;65(1):683–705.CrossRef
31.
Steelman TA, McCaffrey SM, Velez ALK, Briefel JA. What information do people use, trust, and find useful during a disaster? Evidence from five large wildfires. Nat Hazards. 2015;76(1):615–34.CrossRef
32.
33.
Burns R, Robinson P, Smith P. From hypothetical scenario to tragic reality: a salutary lesson in risk communication and the Victorian 2009 bushfires. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2010;34(1):24–31.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Hano MC, Wei L, Hubbell B, Rappold AG. Scaling up: citizen science engagement and impacts beyond the individual. Citiz Sci Theory Pract. 2020;5(1):1.CrossRef
35.
Heaney E, Hunter L, Clulow A, Bowles D, Vardoulakis S. Efficacy of communication techniques and health outcomes of bushfire smoke exposure: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(20):10889.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Sugerman DE, Keir JM, Dee DL, Lipman H, Waterman SH, Ginsberg M, et al. Emergency health risk communication during the 2007 San Diego wildfires: comprehension, compliance, and recall. J Health Commun. 2012;17(6):698–712.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Stieb DM, Huang A, Hocking R, Crouse DL, Osornio-Vargas AR, Villeneuve PJ. Using maps to communicate environmental exposures and health risks: review and best-practice recommendations. Environ Res. 2019;176:108518.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Marfori MT, Campbell SL, Garvey K, McKeown S, Veitch M, Wheeler AJ, et al. Public health messaging during extreme smoke events: are we hitting the mark? Front Public Health. 2020;8:465.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
Berkman ND, Davis TC, McCormack L. Health literacy: what is it? J Health Commun. 2010;15(sup2):9–19.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Neuhauser L, Ivey SL, Huang D, Engelman A, Tseng W, Dahrouge D, et al. Availability and readability of emergency preparedness materials for deaf and hard-of-hearing and older adult populations: issues and assessments. Laks J, editor. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55614.
41.
Neuhauser L, Ivey SL, Huang D, Engelman A, Tseng W, Dahrouge D, et al. Availability and readability of emergency preparedness materials for Deaf and hard-of-hearing and older adult populations: issues and assessments. PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e55614.
42.
Fischhoff B. Risk perception and communication unplugged: twenty years of process. Risk Anal. 1995;15(2):9.CrossRef
43.
Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G. Perception of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal. 2000;20(5):713–20.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Fish JA, Peters MDJ, Ramsey I, Sharplin G, Corsini N, Eckert M. Effectiveness of public health messaging and communication channels during smoke events: a rapid systematic review. J Environ Manage. 2017;193:247–56.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Health Research for Action. Wildfire smoke environmental scan report. 2022.
46.
Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
48.
Google. Google workspace. Mountain View: Alphabet; 2023.
49.
Postma JM, Odom-Maryon T, Rappold AG, Haverkamp H, Amiri S, Bindler R, et al. Promoting risk reduction among young adults with asthma during wildfire smoke: a feasibility study. Public Health Nurs. 2022;39(2):405–14.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Cao Y, Boruff BJ, McNeill IM. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Evaluating the effectiveness of maps for delivering wildfire warning information. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2016;19:179–96.CrossRef
51.
Hano MC, Prince SE, Wei L, Hubbell BJ, Rappold AG. Knowing your audience: a typology of smoke sense participants to inform wildfire smoke health risk communication. Front Public Health. 2020;8:143.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
52.
Mott JA, Meyer P, Mannino D, Redd SC, Smith EM, Gotway-Crawford C, et al. Wildland forest fire smoke: health effects and intervention evaluation, Hoopa, California, 1999. West J Med. 2002;176(3):157–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
53.
Spano G, Elia M, Cappelluti O, Colangelo G, Giannico V, D’Este M, et al. Is experience the best teacher? Knowledge, perceptions, and awareness of wildfire risk. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(16):8385.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
54.
55.
Keegan SA, Rahman KM. Health protection messaging for populations susceptible to air pollution during landscape fire smoke events: an integrative review. Rev Environ Health. 2021;36(4):599–609.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Damon SA, Naylor R, Therriault S. Public communication in unplanned biomass burning events. Inhal Toxicol. 2010;22(2):113–6.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Dodd W, Scott P, Howard C, Scott C, Rose C, Cunsolo A, et al. Lived experience of a record wildfire season in the Northwest Territories, Canada. Can J Public Health. 2018;109(3):327–37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Errett NA, Roop HA, Pendergrast C, Kramer CB, Doubleday A, Tran KA, et al. Building a practice-based research agenda for wildfire smoke and health: a report of the 2018 Washington wildfire smoke risk communication stakeholder synthesis symposium. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13):2398.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
Olsen CS, Mazzotta DK, Toman E, Fischer AP. Communicating about smoke from wildland fire: challenges and opportunities for managers. Environ Manage. 2014;54(3):571–82.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Riden HE, Giacinto R, Wadsworth G, Rainwater J, Andrews T, Pinkerton KE. Wildfire smoke exposure: awareness and safety responses in the agricultural workplace. J Agromedicine. 2020;25(3):330–8.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Thomas M, Klemm C, Hutchins B, Kaufman S. Unpacking the realities and complexities of sensemaking: government practitioners’ experiences of emergency risk communication. Risk Anal. 2021;42(11).
62.
63.
64.
Neuhauser L, Rothschild B, Graham C, Ivey SL, Konishi S. Participatory design of mass health communication in three languages for seniors and people with disabilities on Medicaid. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(12):2188–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A scoping review of wildfire smoke risk communications: issues, gaps, and recommendations
Authors
Morgan H. Vien
Susan L. Ivey
Hollynd Boyden
Stephanie Holm
Linda Neuhauser
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17681-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Public Health 1/2024 Go to the issue

Research

Recreational cannabis legalization and immigration enforcement: a state-level analysis of arrests and deportations in the United States, 2009–2020

Research

COVID-19 vaccine intentions and attitudes in Black American emerging adults with asthma

Research

Sociodemographic and environmental characteristics associated with thoughts of death and suicidal ideation in community-dwelling residents of a rural town in Japan: analyses from a perspective of accompanying problems

Research

COVID-19 control measures unexpectedly increased the duration of stay at High Speed Rail stations during the first community outbreak in Taiwan

Research

Association of urinary chlorpyrifos, paraquat, and cyproconazole levels with the severity of fatty liver based on MRI

Research

Insufficient compensatory pancreatic β-cells function might be closely associated with hyperuricemia in U.S. adults: evidence from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey