Occupational and environmental exposures among Alaska Native and American Indian people living in Alaska and the Southwest United States

Our plain-English summary of Occupational and environmental exposures among Alaska Native and American Indian people living in Alaska and the Southwest United States, by D. Redwood, A.P. Lanier, M. Brubaker, et al (Journal of Environmental Health, 2012).

The study

• Authors: D. Redwood, A.P. Lanier, M. Brubaker, L. Orell, L. Tom-Orme, C. George, S. Edwards, M. Slattery
• Journal: Journal of Environmental Health
• Published: 2012;74(9):22-8
• Cited by: 4 articles, as counted by NIH iCite
• Read it: PubMed · Free full text

Abstract

Most occupational and environmental research describes associations between specific occupational and environmental hazards and health outcomes, with little information available on population-level exposure, especially among unique subpopulations. The authors describe the prevalence of self-reported lifetime exposure to nine occupational and environmental hazards among 11,326 American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) adults enrolled in the Education and Research Towards Health (EARTH) Study in the Southwest U.S. and Alaska. The top three hazards experienced by AI/AN people in Alaska were petroleum products, military chemicals, and asbestos. The top three hazards experienced by AI/AN living in the Southwest U.S. were pesticides, petroleum, and welding/silversmithing. The study described here found that male sex, lower educational attainment, AI/AN language use, and living in the Southwest U.S. (vs. Alaska) were all associated with an increased likelihood of hazard exposure. The authors' study provides baseline data to facilitate future exposure-response analyses. Future studies should measure dose and duration as well as environmental hazards that occur in community settings.

In plain English

This study analyzed questionnaire answers from 11,326 American Indian and Alaska Native adults in the EARTH Study, enrolled March 2004 to October 2007: 3,821 in Alaska and 7,505 Navajo participants in New Mexico and Arizona. Participants reported whether they had ever worked with or around nine hazards, including asbestos, at least once a month for six months or more. No dose or duration was recorded and exposures were not measured. Among those who answered yes or no about asbestos, with "don't know" answers left out, 794 (8.5%) reported exposure: 14.4% of men and 5.0% of women, and 6.0% in Alaska versus 9.7% in the Southwest. Seventeen percent did not know whether they had been exposed to asbestos, more than for any other hazard. After adjustment for other factors, men had 3.34 times the odds of reporting asbestos exposure compared with women (95% confidence interval 2.87 to 3.89), and Southwest participants 1.71 times the odds of Alaska participants (1.42 to 2.06). The authors concluded the data provide baseline information for future research and noted that true exposure may be higher than reported.

We wrote this plain-English summary from the full article with the help of AI, and a second AI model checked each sentence against the article. It is not the authors' wording; the abstract and the article are their own account.

What the study did and found

• Design: Cross-sectional analysis of self-reported lifetime exposures within a multicenter cohort (the EARTH Study), using prevalence figures and multivariate logistic regression
• Who was studied: 11,326 American Indian and Alaska Native adults aged 18 and over, enrolled March 2004 to October 2007. 3,821 were in Alaska (95% Alaska Native, 5% American Indian), from one urban center and 26 villages. 7,505 were Navajo participants from 48 communities in northern New Mexico and Arizona.
• Exposure: Self-reported lifetime exposure to nine hazards: mineral or mining dust, pesticides, heavy metals, lead, radioactive material, welding or silversmithing, asbestos, gasoline or petroleum products, and military chemicals (asked only of those with military service). 'Yes' meant having worked with or around the material at least once a month for six months or more, at home, at work or in spare time. No fiber types were specified.
• Main results:
  • Among participants who answered yes or no to the asbestos question, 794 (8.5%) reported asbestos exposure. Those who answered 'don't know' or did not answer were excluded from these percentages.
  • Reported asbestos exposure was 14.4% (501) among men and 5.0% (293) among women
  • Reported asbestos exposure was 6.0% (190) in the Alaska study center and 9.7% (604) in the Southwest U.S. study center
  • 17% of participants did not know whether they had been exposed to asbestos, the highest 'don't know' share of any hazard
  • In the adjusted model for asbestos, men had an odds ratio of 3.34 (95% CI 2.87 to 3.89) compared with women
  • In the adjusted model for asbestos, Southwest U.S. participants had an odds ratio of 1.71 (95% CI 1.42 to 2.06) compared with Alaska participants
  • For asbestos, having a high school education or higher (odds ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.05) was not statistically significant. The same was true for speaking an AI/AN language at home (odds ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.32).
  • Across all participants, the most commonly reported hazards were petroleum products (15%), pesticides (11%) and welding/silversmithing (9%), followed by asbestos (9%)
  • Almost 64% of participants reported no hazard exposure, 28% reported one to two hazards, and 8% reported three or more
• The authors' conclusion: The authors concluded that the study gives a better understanding of the exposures experienced by American Indian and Alaska Native people and provides baseline surveillance data for future exposure-response analyses. They said future studies should include dose and duration data.
• Limitations the authors state:
  • No data were collected on dose, duration, or when in life exposure occurred
  • No data were gathered on environmental hazards in residential or community settings, such as persistent organic pollutants
  • Self-reported exposure was not checked by any occupational or environmental monitoring
  • True prevalence may be higher than reported because many participants were unsure of past exposures

Topics

Medical terms in this study, explained in our Lexicon: Environmental Exposure.

Related studies

• Environmental risk of mesothelioma in the United States: An emerging concern-epidemiological issues — F. Baumann, M. Carbone (2016)
• Immunotoxic effects of chemicals: A matrix for occupational and environmental epidemiological studies — A. Veraldi, A.S. Costantini, et al. (2006)
• Comment on "Mesothelioma from asbestos exposures: Epidemiologic patterns and impact in the United States" by R A Lemen, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B 2016;19:250-265 — C. Magnani, D. Mirabelli, et al. (2017)
• Author's response to: "Letter to the Editor" regarding content of "Mesothelioma from asbestos exposures: Epidemiologic patterns and impact in the United States" by R. A. Lemen, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B 2016; 19: 250-265 — (2017)
• Mesothelioma from asbestos exposures: Epidemiologic patterns and impact in the United States — R.A. Lemen (2016)
• Potential health hazards associated with exposures to asbestos-containing drywall accessory products: A state-of-the-science assessment — A.D. Phelka, B.L. Finley (2012)

Browse return to medical research.