A Possible Nocebo Effect in Children Following the Flint Water Crisis: Evidence From Schoolteacher Perceptions and Neuropsychological Evaluations

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Siddhartha Roy, Marc A. Edwards, Keith J. Petrie, Greg D. Gamble, Ellie Jacques
{"title":"A Possible Nocebo Effect in Children Following the Flint Water Crisis: Evidence From Schoolteacher Perceptions and Neuropsychological Evaluations","authors":"Siddhartha Roy, Marc A. Edwards, Keith J. Petrie, Greg D. Gamble, Ellie Jacques","doi":"10.1017/dmp.2024.106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective Special education enrollment increased in Flint following the 2014–2015 Flint Water Crisis, but lead exposure is not plausibly responsible. Labeling Flint children as lead poisoned and/or brain damaged may have contributed to rising special education needs (ie, nocebo effect). To better document this possibility, we surveyed schoolteachers and reviewed neuropsychological assessments of children for indications of negative labeling. Methods A survey of Flint and Detroit (control) public schoolteachers using a modified Illness Perception Questionnaire was conducted 5 years post-crisis. We also examined neuropsychological assessments from a recently settled class lawsuit. Results Relative to Detroit (n = 24), Flint teachers (n = 11) believed that a higher proportion of their students had harmful lead exposure (91.8% Flint vs 46% Detroit; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.00034), were lead poisoned (51.3% vs 24.3%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.018), or brain damaged (28.8% vs 12.9%; <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.1), even though blood lead of Flint children was always less than half of that of Detroit children. Neuropsychological assessments diagnosed lead poisoning and/or brain damage from water lead exposure in all tested children (n = 8), even though none had evidence of elevated blood lead and a majority had prior learning disability diagnoses. Conclusion Teachers’ responses and neuropsychological assessments suggest Flint children were harmed by a nocebo effect.","PeriodicalId":54390,"journal":{"name":"Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2024.106","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective Special education enrollment increased in Flint following the 2014–2015 Flint Water Crisis, but lead exposure is not plausibly responsible. Labeling Flint children as lead poisoned and/or brain damaged may have contributed to rising special education needs (ie, nocebo effect). To better document this possibility, we surveyed schoolteachers and reviewed neuropsychological assessments of children for indications of negative labeling. Methods A survey of Flint and Detroit (control) public schoolteachers using a modified Illness Perception Questionnaire was conducted 5 years post-crisis. We also examined neuropsychological assessments from a recently settled class lawsuit. Results Relative to Detroit (n = 24), Flint teachers (n = 11) believed that a higher proportion of their students had harmful lead exposure (91.8% Flint vs 46% Detroit; P = 0.00034), were lead poisoned (51.3% vs 24.3%; P = 0.018), or brain damaged (28.8% vs 12.9%; P = 0.1), even though blood lead of Flint children was always less than half of that of Detroit children. Neuropsychological assessments diagnosed lead poisoning and/or brain damage from water lead exposure in all tested children (n = 8), even though none had evidence of elevated blood lead and a majority had prior learning disability diagnoses. Conclusion Teachers’ responses and neuropsychological assessments suggest Flint children were harmed by a nocebo effect.
弗林特水危机后儿童可能出现的恐慌效应:来自教师看法和神经心理学评估的证据
目标 2014-2015 年弗林特水危机发生后,弗林特的特殊教育入学率有所上升,但铅暴露并非合理原因。给弗林特儿童贴上铅中毒和/或脑损伤的标签可能会导致特殊教育需求增加(即 "前兆效应")。为了更好地证明这种可能性,我们对学校教师进行了调查,并对儿童的神经心理学评估进行了审查,以寻找负面标签的迹象。方法 危机发生 5 年后,我们使用修改过的疾病认知问卷对弗林特和底特律(对照组)公立学校的教师进行了调查。我们还检查了最近解决的一起集体诉讼案中的神经心理学评估结果。结果 相对于底特律(24 人),弗林特教师(11 人)认为他们的学生中有更高比例的人接触了有害铅(弗林特 91.8% 对底特律 46%;P = 0.00034)、铅中毒(弗林特 51.3% 对底特律 24.3%;P = 0.018)或脑损伤(弗林特 28.8% 对底特律 12.9%;P = 0.1),尽管弗林特儿童的血铅始终低于底特律儿童的一半。尽管所有受测儿童(8 人)都没有血铅升高的迹象,而且大多数儿童之前都被诊断出有学习障碍,但神经心理学评估却诊断出这些儿童因接触水铅而导致铅中毒和/或脑损伤。结论 教师的回答和神经心理学评估表明,弗林特儿童受到了 "先兆效应 "的伤害。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
7.40%
发文量
258
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness is the first comprehensive and authoritative journal emphasizing public health preparedness and disaster response for all health care and public health professionals globally. The journal seeks to translate science into practice and integrate medical and public health perspectives. With the events of September 11, the subsequent anthrax attacks, the tsunami in Indonesia, hurricane Katrina, SARS and the H1N1 Influenza Pandemic, all health care and public health professionals must be prepared to respond to emergency situations. In support of these pressing public health needs, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness is committed to the medical and public health communities who are the stewards of the health and security of citizens worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信