The environmental history in pediatric practice: a study of pediatricians' attitudes, beliefs, and practices. (Children's Health Articles).

We conducted a mail survey of practicing pediatricians in Georgia to assess their knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding recording patients' environmental histories. Of 477 eligible pediatricians, 266 (55.8%) responded. Fewer than one in five reported having received training in environmental history-taking. Pediatricians reported that they strongly believe in the importance of environmental exposures in children's health, and 53.5% of respondents reported experience with a patient who was seriously affected by an environmental exposure. Pediatricians agreed moderately strongly that environmental history-taking is useful in identifying potentially hazardous exposures and in helping prevent these exposures. Respondents reported low self-efficacy regarding environmental history-taking, discussing environmental exposures with parents, and finding diagnosis and treatment resources related to environmental exposures. The probability of self-reported history-taking varied with the specific exposure, with environmental tobacco smoke and pets most frequently queried and asbestos, mercury, formaldehyde, and radon-rarely queried. The pediatricians' preferred information resources include the American Academy of Pediatrics, newsletters, and patient education materials. Pediatricians are highly interested in pediatric environmental health but report low self-efficacy in taking and following up .on environmental histories. There is considerable opportunity for training in environmental history-taking and for increasing the frequency with which such histories are taken. Key words: children's environmental health, clinical history, environmental history, environmental medicine, medical history. Environ Health Perspect 110:823-827 (2002). [Online 8 July 2002]

http: //ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2002/110p823-827kilpatrick/abstract.html

**********

Children confront a wide range of potential hazards in the environment and are especially susceptible to toxic effects because of their developing organ systems, immature biologic defenses, and increased exposure due to small size, diet, behaviors, and other factors (1). Public concern for these exposures is high (2), and patients frequently ask their physicians about the health effects of environmental exposures (3). In recent years the intersection of pediatrics and environmental health, or "children's environmental health," has attracted considerable attention (4). This field has been defined as "the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of illness due to perinatal and pediatric exposures to environmental hazards," together with "the creation of healthy environments for children" (5).

Clinical practice plays an important role in advancing and protecting children's environmental health. Health care providers such as pediatricians can help limit children's exposures to environmental hazards by educating parents, identifying hazardous exposures, diagnosing and treating children, and advocating for prevention (6). However, physicians have little training in environmental health (7). A series of studies by Levy assessing the extent of teaching in occupational and environmental medicine in U.S. medical schools (8-10) and a more recent study focusing exclusively on environmental medicine (11) found a fairly stable pattern: about one in four schools offer no instruction at all in this area, and of schools that do, the mean number of hours of instruction over 4 years is < 10. Over two-thirds of medical school deans reported that the emphasis on environmental medicine in their schools' curricula is "minimal" (12). A similar pattern prevails in residency training (13-17).

The clinical history is an essential part of data collection and doctor-patient communication (18-22). The environmental history (questions eliciting the parents' concerns and probing potential environmental hazards to which a child is exposed) is readily included in the routine medical history (23-25). However, medical professionals seldom elicit an environmental history from their patients (26,27). Pediatricians who do ask about environmental exposures usually limit their inquiry to lead and environmental tobacco smoke (28).

Whether providers perform preventive practices such as history-taking, vaccination, and lead screening is significantly affected by their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs (29,30). More generally, Bandura (31) has identified several factors that help predict behaviors, including self-efficacy and outcome expectancy. Self-efficacy is a person's level of confidence about performing a particular behavior, including confidence in overcoming barriers to performing that behavior. Outcome expectancy refers to the belief that a particular (desired) outcome will follow as a consequence of a behavior. For example, a pediatrician who is confident about environmental history-taking (high self-efficacy) and who expects useful information to flow from this portion of the history (high outcome expectancy) is more likely to take a history than is a physician without these attributes. Assessing these constructs within a population provides the opportunity to identify strategies for behavior change as well as methods for accomplishing these changes (32,33).

In the present study we assessed the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of Georgia pediatricians regarding children's environmental health, focusing particularly on the environmental history. We also sought additional information regarding the pediatricians' training and informational sources. We interpreted the results with reference to the conceptual constructs of outcome expectancy and self-efficacy.

Methods

Our target population consisted of pediatricians practicing in Georgia. We obtained the mailing roster from the Georgia Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. The roster consisted of 1,416 potential respondents, of whom we eliminated 41 because their practices were outside Georgia or because they were not pediatricians. Of the remaining 1,375, we randomly selected 500 to receive a mail survey.

The questionnaire consisted of 21 items divided into four separate domains. The first domain ascertained information about the pediatrician's demographics, the practice setting, and the patient population. The second domain queried attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy on children's environmental health, with an emphasis on environmental history-taking. The third domain inquired about the pediatricians' current behaviors, with questions on how often particular questions are asked during patient visits and on the circumstances in which they are asked (i.e., routinely, based on suspicion of a possible environmental exposure, based on a parent's concern about a possible environmental exposure). The final domain, on information, asked about the pediatricians' preferred sources of information and about what sources or methods they would find most helpful in learning more about children's environmental health. Before the survey, we pilot tested the questionnaire on five pediatricians and made modifications to improve clarity and convenience.

We mailed the questionnaire with a cover letter and a stamped, addressed return envelope in February 2000. We sent a second mailing, with a reminder letter and a second copy of the questionnaire to all nonrespondents. During data entry, we identified missing values and excluded them from the data analysis; we checked data by running frequencies on each variable to check for outliers and data entry errors, and we randomly sampled and checked 10% of the questionnaires for accuracy. We ran descriptive statistics using SPSS, version 10.0.5 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

The study was approved by Emory University's Human Investigations Committee.

Results

Of the 500 questionnaires mailed, 266 were completed and 23 were returned as undeliverable. The overall response rate was therefore 266 of a possible 477 respondents, or 55.8%. We excluded 38 of the 266 returned questionnaires from analysis because the respondents reported that they were not currently in pediatric practice. Therefore, the final sample analyzed consisted of 228 practicing pediatricians.

We compared respondents and non-respondents in two ways: urban-rural residence (from the addresses) and date of licensure [from Georgia Composite State Board of Medical Examiners records, which are publicly accessible on the Internet (34)]. Date of licensure is a rough proxy of age. Of the 156 surveys sent to rural physicians, 8 were returned as undeliverable, and 91 of the remaining 148 were returned, a response rate of 61.5%. Of the 344 surveys sent to urban physicians, 15 were returned as undeliverable, and 175 of the remaining 329 were returned, a response rate of 53.2%. Among the respondents, the mean number of years of licensure ([+ or -] SD) in Georgia was 14.9 [+ or -] 13.9, and among nonrespondents, the mean number of years of licensure ([+ or -] SD) in Georgia was 13.5 [+ or -] 12.4. Therefore, respondents were slightly more likely to be rural than were nonrespondents, and the two groups did not differ regarding years of medical licensure in Georgia.

Demographics. Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics and practice profiles of the respondents. The mean age ([+ or -] SD) was 45.7 [+ or -] 12.1 years, and the mean number of years in practice was 14.8 [+ or -] 11.4. The respondents were about equally divided between men and women, the majority was white, and the majority practiced in urban locations, mostly in private, primary care practices. However, various specialties were also represented, including pediatric cardiology, rheumatology, and immunology; neonatology; allergy and asthma; and hematology/oncology. About one-half of the respondents reported that [greater than or equal to] 50% of their patients were enrolled in Medicaid.

Training and past experience. As shown in Table 2, fewer than one in five respondents reported having had any training in environmental history-taking. Just over one-half of the respondents reported a past experience with a patient who had been "seriously affected" by an environmental exposure, such as a case of lead poisoning. Approximately one in five respondents had a copy of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Handbook of Pediatric Environmental Health (25), which was published approximately 6 months before the survey. Several reported in handwritten notes that they were planning to order the handbook, and one requested ordering information.

The pediatricians' answers to these questions did not differ by sex, race, rural-urban location, or practice type (data not shown).

Attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy. Table 3 shows data on the pediatricians' attitudes, beliefs, and self-efficacy regarding environmental history-taking. Respondents scored the attitude statements using a Likert scale of 1-5, from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." As shown in Table 3, pediatricians agreed relatively strongly that environmental history-taking would help parents protect their children from hazardous environmental exposures (mean, 3.97) and would help identify exposures causing specific symptoms (mean, 3.91). There was less agreement that taking an environmental history would create more work for office staff (mean, 3.53). However, other statements of logistic barriers--that taking an environmental history would take too much time or would create reimbursement problems--elicited little or no agreement (means, 3.11 and 3.06, respectively, with 3.00 representing the midpoint between disagreement and agreement). One pediatrician wrote an additional response to the final question: "We do not get paid for counseling." We found no gender, rural-urban, or practice type differences in the answers to these attitude questions (data not shown). However, Asian-American pediatricians tended to have a stronger belief and white pediatricians a weaker belief, compared with African-American and Hispanic pediatricians, that environmental history-taking would help parents prevent exposures to environmental threats.

As shown in Table 3, we asked respondents to respond to four belief questions. Respondents also scored these questions on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, with the lower scores representing less belief in the importance of environmental health issues. The responses generally indicated that the pediatricians attach considerable importance to environmental exposures. The "role of environmental health impacts on children" yielded a mean score of 4.30, and "assessing environmental exposures through history-taking in pediatric practice" yielded a mean score of 4.00. Pediatricians showed a tendency to believe that the magnitude of children's environment-related illness is increasing (mean, 3.85). However, the responses suggested little belief that pediatricians have control over environmental health hazards, with the mean score (2.78) falling below the midpoint of the continuum. We also found no gender or urban-rural differences in the self-reported beliefs. However, white pediatricians gave slightly lower scores and Asian-American pediatricians gave slightly higher scores to the importance of the role of environmental health impacts on children and the importance of assessing environmental exposures through history-taking. Moreover, urgent care providers gave slightly lower scores to these items than did primary care providers or specialists (data not shown).

As shown in Table 3, we asked respondents to respond to four self-efficacy statements, also using a four-point Likert scale. For all three self-efficacy statements--on history-taking, on discussing environmental exposures with parents, and on finding diagnosis and treatment resources related to environmental exposures--the mean responses fell between "somewhat confident" and "confident." We found no gender, racial, or rural-urban differences in the answers to these items, but urgent care providers reported lower self-efficacy in taking a patient history that includes questions on environmental exposures than did primary care providers or specialists (data not shown).

We asked respondents if they would like to learn more about children's environmental hazards. A large majority--89%--answered affirmatively. One pediatrician indicated a desire to get involved in children's environmental health efforts in Georgia: "I am very interested in helping any way I can."

Practices. Figure 1 shows data on the pediatricians' self-reported interview practices. We presented pediatricians with a list of environmental exposures and asked them which of the exposures they routinely include in their histories, which of the exposures they had asked about during the previous month based on clinical suspicion, and which of the exposures they had asked about in the previous month in response to parental concerns. High numbers of respondents reported routinely asking about cigarette smoking around the child (88.2%), pets in the home (73.7%), source of drinking water (65.4%), lead (59.6%), and housing (54.4%). We saw a similar pattern regarding clinical suspicion, although for three exposures (molds, home heating source, and indoor air) clinical suspicion had triggered more questions than had routine history-taking. We also saw a similar pattern (albeit with lower proportions) for exposures discussed as a result of parental concern, although parents were relatively less likely to initiate discussion about drinking water, lead, housing, sunlight, and television exposures, and relatively more likely to ask about molds and indoor and outdoor air pollution. Fewer than 5% of respondents reported asking about asbestos, mercury, nitrates, formaldehyde, and radon in response to any of the three triggers (data not shown).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Male and female pediatricians were equally likely to report routinely taking a basic environmental history (housing, parental occupation, and environmental tobacco smoke). However, this routine history-taking varied by race/ethnicity (72.1% of whites, 82.4% of blacks, 51.6% of Asians, and 80% of Hispanics; p = 0.05). Pediatricians in urgent care and emergency practices (90%) and in specialty practices (79.4%) were more likely to routinely take a basic environmental history than were those in primary care practices (66.3%), although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.11). Urban pediatricians were more likely than their rural counterparts to take such a history (73.8% and 60.8%, respectively; p = 0.04).

Sources of information. We asked the pediatricians about their sources of information on environmental exposures. Their responses are shown in Table 4. The most common source of information identified was the American Academy of Pediatrics (89.0%). Other important sources included professional literature (67.5%), government agencies (58.8%); mass media (27.2%), and colleagues' opinions (27.6%). When asked about sources they would find most helpful in obtaining further information, the responses were similar, as shown in Table 5: guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics (69.3%), newsletters (58.8%), patient education materials (51.3%), continuing medical education classes (43.0%), and journals (39.9%).

Conclusions

Georgia pediatricians who participated in our survey evidenced a high level of interest in children's environmental health, a high level of belief in the impact of environmental exposures on their patients' health, and a high level of interest in learning more about the field. Moreover, they perceived few logistic barriers, such as time, effort, or cost, to incorporating the environmental history into their clinical visits.

On the other hand, pediatricians reported very little prior training in taking environmental histories and low self-efficacy regarding taking these histories, discussing environmental exposures with parents, and locating diagnosis and treatment resources related to environmental exposures. Low outcome expectancy--the belief that it is difficult to follow up on interview responses by providing appropriate information, diagnosis, and treatment--aggravates the impact of low self-efficacy. These findings would adversely affect the likelihood that pediatricians elicit environmental histories from their patients.

This was a study of attitudes and behaviors, and not of knowledge. A separate set of questions relates to what pediatricians know about pediatric environmental health issues: how to recognize, treat, and prevent lead toxicity; how to diagnose and treat pesticide toxicity; how to evaluate indoor environments for health hazards; and so on. Pediatricians' knowledge can be assessed through study of relevant questions on board examinations and through surveys similar to the one reported here.

Our data point to clear opportunities to address these problems. In addition to their high level of belief that environmental exposures are important, respondents were able to identify strongly preferred sources of information. Chief among them is the American Academy of Pediatrics, which enjoys very high credibility among pediatricians. Newsletters and government agency publications are also preferred sources of information, more than professional journals and considerably more than Internet-based sources (although this may change over time with growing use of computers). Interestingly, of those currently obtaining information from World Wide Web sites, nearly twice as many report using professional organization sites as commercial medical information portals.

Our response rate of 55.8% was reasonable for a mail survey. However, it was well below 100%, which may have introduced some selection bias. By available measures--rural-urban status and years of licensure in Georgia--the repondents and nonrespondents were roughly similar. However, respondents may still have been more interested in pediatric environmental health and more eager to engage the subject (including learning more about it) than nonrespondents. Our results may therefore overstate the level of interest among pediatricians. Similarly, because our results are based on self-report and because respondents may be motivated to give the "right" answer, the level of interest may be overstated. Nevertheless, we believe our results indicate a considerable reservoir of interest in pediatric environmental health, considerable opportunity for educating pediatricians about this field, and considerable opportunity for increasing environmental history-taking.

Table 1. Description of respondents and their
practices.

Characteristic                                 No.             Percent

Age (mean [+ or -] SD)                  45.7 [+ or -] 12.1
Years in practice (mean [+ or -] SD)    14.8 [+ or -] 11.4
Sex
  Male                                         125               54.8
  Female                                       103               45.2
Race
  African American                              17                7.5
  Asian                                         31               13.6
  White                                        165               72.4
  Hispanic                                      10                4.4
  Native American                                1                0.4
  Other or not specified                         3                1.3
Location
  Urban                                        149               65.4
  Rural                                         79               34.6
Type of practice
  Primary care                                 184               80.7
  Specialty                                     34               14.9
  Urgent care/emergency                         10                4.4
Practice setting
  Private without HMO                          154               67.5
  Public                                        40               17.5
  Teaching                                      14                6.1
  Other                                          7                3.9
  Private with HMO                               9                3.9
  Research                                       1                0.4
Patients on Medicaid or
  public assistance
    0-24%                                       52               22.8
    25-49%                                      65               28.5
    50-74%                                      60               26.3
    75-100%                                     45               19.7

HMO, health maintenance organization.

Table 2. Pediatricians' background in environmental medicine.

Question                                     Response    No.    Percent

Any specific training in environmental
  history-taking?                              Yes        34      14.9
                                                No       188      82.5
Past experience with a patient affected
  by an environmental exposure?                Yes       122      53.5
                                                No       103      45.2
Do you own a copy of the Handbook of
  Pediatric Environmental Health?              Yes        50      21.9
                                                No       172      75.4

Table 3. Pediatricians' self-reported attitudes, beliefs, and
self-efficacy regarding environmental health.

                                                     Mean [+ or -] SD

Attitude statements (a)
  Conducting an environmental health history on
    all my patients would
      Help parents prevent exposures to              3.97 [+ or -] 0.70
        environmental threats (n = 223)
      Identify the exposures causing specific        3.91 [+ or -] 0.69
        symptoms (n = 222)
      Add more work on my staff (n = 223)            3.53 [+ or -] 0.97
      Take up too much time (n = 223)                3.11 [+ or -] 0.93
      Create a potential reimbursement problem       3.06 [+ or -] 1.12
        (n = 220)
Belief statements (n = 227)
  The role of environmental health impacts on        4.30 [+ or -] 0.78
    children is of little importance (1) [right
    arrow] of great importance (5)
  Assessing environmental exposures through          4.00 [+ or -] 0.86
    history-taking in pediatric practice is of
    little importance (1) [right arrow] of great
    importance (5)
  The magnitude of children's environmental          3.85 [+ or -] 0.82
    related-illnesses is decreasing (1) [right
    arrow] increasing (5)
  The amount of control pediatricians have over
    environmental health hazards is minimal (1)      2.78 [+ or -] 0.87
    [right arrow] maximal (5)
Self-efficacy statements (b) (n = 221)
  Taking a patient history that includes questions   2.80 [+ or -] 0.72
    on environmental exposures
  Discussing with parents or guardians the impact    2.81 [+ or -] 0.74
    of environmental issues on health
  Finding treatment and diagnosis resources          2.51 [+ or -] 0.77
    related to environmental exposures

(a) Response choices ranged from 1, strongly disagree, to 5, strongly
agree. (b) Response choices ranged from 1, not confident, to 4, very
confident.

Table 4. Physicians' sources of information on
children's environmental health.

Source of information                  No.     Percent

American Academy of Pediatrics         203       89.0
Professional literature                154       67.5
Government agencies                    134       58.8
Colleague's opinions                    63       27.6
Mass media                              62       27.2
World Wide Web, total                   38       16.7
Professional organization sites (a)     30       13.2
Medical sites (b)                       18        7.9
General search engines                   8        3.5
Advocacy groups                         16        7.0

(a) For example, American Academy of Pediatrics (35),
American Medical Association (36), American Chemical
Society (37). (b) For example, Dr. Koop (38), WebMD (39),
Medscape (40).

Table 5. Sources that pediatricians believe are
most helpful in gaining further information on children's
environmental health issues.

Sources                                 No.     Percent

American Academy of Pediatrics          158       69.3
Newsletters                             134       58.8
Patient education materials             117       51.3
Continuing medical education classes     98       43.0
Journals                                 91       39.9
lnternet                                 68       29.8
Videos                                    9       21.5
Multimedia                               19        8.3

REFERENCES AND NOTES

(1.) National Research Council. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1993.

(2.) Pew Charitable Trusts. Public Opinion Research on Public Health, Environmental Health and the Country's Public Health Capacity to Adequately Address Environmental Health Problems. Philadelphia:Pew Charitable Trusts, 1999.

(3.) Szneke P, Nielsen C, Tolentino N. Connecticut physicians' knowledge and needs assessment of environmentally related health hazards: a survey. Conn Med 58:131-135 (1994).

(4.) U.S. EPA. Environmental Health Threats to Children. EPA 175-F-96-001. Washington, DC:U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1996. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ epadocs/child.htm [cited 26 May 2002].

(5.) Children's Environmental Health Network/Public Health Institute. Training Manual on Pediatric Environmental Health: Putting It into Practice. San Francisco, CA:Children's Environmental Health Network/Public Health Institute, 1999.

(6.) Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Institute of Medicine. Role of the Primary Care Physician in Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1988. Available: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/9496.html [cited 22 May 2002].

(7.) Pope AM, Rall DP, eds. Environmental Medicine: Integrating a Missing Element into Medical Education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1995.

(8.) Levy BS. The teaching of occupational health in American medical schools. J Med Educ 55:18-22 (1980).

(9.) Levy BS. The teaching of occupational health in the United States medical schools: five-year follow-up of an initial survey. Am J Public Health 75:79-80 (1985).

(10.) Burstein JM, Levy BS. The teaching of occupational health in US medical schools: little improvement in 9 years. Am J Public Health 84:846-849 (1994).

(11.) Schenk M, Popp SM, Neale AV, Demers RY. Environmental medicine content in medical school curricula. Acad Med 71(5):499-501 (1996).

(12.) Graber DR, Musham C, Bellack JP, Holmes D. Environmental health in medical school curricula: views of academic deans. J Occup Environ Med 37(7):807-811 (1995).

(13.) Frazier LM, Cromer JW, Andolsek KM, Greenberg GN, Thomann WR, Stopford W. Teaching occupational and environmental medicine in primary care residency training programs: experience using three approaches during 1984-1991. Am J Med Sci 302:42-45 (1991).

(14.) Bearer CF, Phillips R: Pediatric environmental health training--impact on residents. Am J Dis Child 147:682-684 (1993).

(15.) Musham C, Bellack JP, Graber DR, Holmes D. Environmental health training: a survey of family practice residency program directors. Fam Med 28(1):29-32 (1996).

(16.) Lees RE. Occupational and environmental health. Preparing residents to treat related illnesses [Editorial]. Can Fam Physician 42:594-598,606-609 (1996).

(17.) Schuman SH, Mohr LJ Jr, Simpson WM Jr. The occupational and environmental medicine gap in the family medicine curriculum: needs assessment in South Carolina. Part I. J Occup Environ Med 39:1183-1185 (1997).

(18.) Novack DH. Therapeutic aspects of the clinical encounter. J Gen Intern Med 2:346-355 (1987).

(19.) Smith RC, Hoppe RB. The patient's story: integrating the patient- and physician-centered approaches to interviewing. Ann Intern Med 115:470-477 (1991).

(20.) Lipkin M. The Medical Interview: A Functional Approach. St. Louis:Mosby Yearbook, 1991.

(21.) Peterson MC, Holbrook JH, Von Hales D, Smith NL, Staker LV. Contributions of the history, physical examination, and laboratory investigation in making medical diagnoses. West J Med 156:163-165 (1992).

(22.) Roter DL, Hall JA. Doctors Talking with Patients, Patients Talking with Doctors. Westport, CT:Auburn House, 1992.

(23.) American College of Physicians. Occupational and environmental medicine: the internist's role. Ann Int Med 113(12):974-982 (1990).

(24.) Thompson JN, Brodkin CA, Kyes K, Neighbor W, Evanoff B. Use of a questionnaire to improve occupational and environmental history taking in primary care physicians. J Occup Environ Med 42:1188-1194 (2000).

(25.) Etzel RA, ed. Handbook of Pediatric Environmental Health. Elk Grove Village, IL:American Academy of Pediatrics, 1999.

(26.) Demers RY, Wall SJ. Occupational history*taking in a family practice academic setting. J Med Educ 58:151-153 (1983).

(27.) Lipscomb J, Burgel B, McGill LW, Blanc P. Preventing occupational illness and injury: nurse practitioners as primary care providers. Am J Public Health 84:643-645 (1994).

(28.) Balk SJ. The environmental history: asking the right questions. Contemp Pediatr 13:19-36 (1996).

(29.) Ferguson SC, Lieu TA. Blood lead testing by pediatricians: practice, attitudes, and demographics. Am J Public Health 87:1349-1351 (1997).

(30.) Zimmerman RK, Bradford BJ, Janosky LE, Mieczkowski TA, DeSensi E, Grufferman S. Barriers to measles and pertussis immunizations. The knowledge and attitudes of Pennsylvania primary care physicians. Am J Prev Med 13:89-97 (1997).

(31.) Bandura A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall, 1986.

(32.) Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, eds. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997.

(33.) Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PA, Rubin HR. Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 282:1458-1465 (1999).

(34.) Composite State Board of Medical Examiners: For Consumers. Available: http://www.state.ga.us/meb/ consumers.html [cited 22 May 2002].

(35.) Homepage of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Available: http://www.aap.org/ [cited 22 May 2002].

(36.) Homepage of the American Medical Association. Available: http://wwww.ama-assn.org/ [cited 22 May 2002].

(37.) Homepage of the American Chemical Society. Available: http://www.acs.org/portal/Chemistry [cited 22 May 2002].

(38.) drkoop.com Homepage. Available: http://www.drkoop.com/ [cited 22 May 2002].

(39.) WebMD Homepage. Available: http://webmd.com/ [cited 22 May 2002].

(40.) Medscape Homepage. Available: http:// www.medscape.com/px/urlinfo [cited 22 May 2002].

Address correspondence to H. Frumkin, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Rollins School of Public Health of Emory University, 1518 Clifton Road, Atlanta, GA 30322 USA. Telephone: [phone]. Fax: [phone]. E-mail: [e-mail]

* Current address: May South, Atlanta, GA, USA.

We thank the many busy pediatricians who took the time to participate in this study.

This research was partially funded by the Southeast Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit at Emory University, a project funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, through the Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics. A preliminary version of these results was presented at the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association in Boston, Massachusetts, in November 2000.

Received 30 August 2001; accepted 3 February 2002.

Nikki Kilpatrick, (1) Howard Frumkin, (2,3) Jane Trowbridge, (1) Cam Escoffery, (1) Robert Geller, (3,4,5) Leslie Rubin, (3,4,6,) * Gerald Teague, (3,4) and Janice Nodvin (3,6) *

(1) Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, and (2) Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; (3) Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit, and (4) Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, (5) Georgia Poison Center, Atlanta, Georgia, USA; (6) Marcus Institute, Atlanta, Georgia, USA