123
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0
shares
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

    Review of 'Risk Perception and Use of Personal Care Products by Race and Ethnicity among A Diverse Population'

    EDITOR
    Bookmark
    4
    Risk Perception and Use of Personal Care Products by Race and Ethnicity among A Diverse PopulationCrossref
    Accept with minor revision
    Average rating:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 5 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Competing interests:
    None

    Reviewed article

    • Record: found
    • Abstract: found
    • Article: found
    Is Open Access

    Risk Perception and Use of Personal Care Products by Race and Ethnicity among A Diverse Population

    Background: Personal care products (PCPs) can contain phthalates, parabens, and other endocrine-disrupting chemicals. However, information on perception of risks from PCP use and how use varies by race and ethnicity is limited. Objective: We evaluated differences in PCP use and risk perception in a diverse sample of participants recruited from a U.S. college campus and online. Methods: A self-administered questionnaire captured information on sociodemographic factors, PCP use trends, and perception of risk associated with PCPs. Pearson's Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests were used to determine differences in PCP use and risk perception by race and ethnicity. Ordered logistic regressions were performed to measure associations between PCP use frequency across racial/ethnic categories. Results: Participant (n=770) mean age was 22.8 years (SD ± 6.0). Daily use of make-up (eye = 29.3%; other=38.0%; all=33.7%) and skincare products (55%) was most frequently reported among Middle Eastern and North African (MENA) participants. Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) participants reported the highest daily use of hairstyling products (52%) and lotion (78%). Daily make-up use was more frequently reported among females (41%) than males (24.6%). Levels of agreement were similar across racial and ethnic groups, that PCP manufacturers should be required to list all ingredients (≥87%). There were significant associations between the frequency of use of some personal care products and racial/ethnic categories when the use frequencies of participants from other racial/ethnic categories were compared to the use frequency of NHW participants. Conclusion: There were significant differences in daily use frequency, levels of trust, perception of safety, and health risks associated with PCPs by race and ethnicity, underscoring that there may be different sources of exposure to chemicals in PCPs by race and ethnicity.
      Bookmark

      Review information

      10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EARTH.AUEOVA.v1.RPRYKE
      This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

      Earth & Environmental sciences,Social & Behavioral Sciences
      Use Frequency,Race and Ethnicity,Risk Perception,Personal Care Products,Health,Perception of Safety,People and their environment,Diversity

      Review text

      The manuscript investigates the perception of risk and usage of personal care products (PCP) across diverse racial and ethnic populations. It applies a survey-based approach to gather data on individual perceptions and practices regarding PCP use, focusing on how these vary among different racial and ethnic groups. The study aims to uncover patterns and influences that drive PCP choices and risk awareness, providing insights into behavioural differences influenced by cultural and societal factors. This research contributes to a better understanding of consumer behaviour in the context of personal care and health risk awareness.

      I recommend Accept with minor revision.

      1. What is the sample size in adjusted regressions in Table 4? I believe missing data exists, according to Table 1. Please also further discuss missing data and the representativeness of your data.

      2. Please mention potential confounding factors that you considered in the Method section, particularly for the regression models. e.g., are they not included due to further ethical approval required? It is not sufficient to state it with one sentence in discussion (Finally, in this study, we did not capture or measure the socioeconomic status of the respondents). 

      3. Please limit your conclusions to the "young adults" setting. e.g., There were significant differences in daily use frequency, levels of trust, perception of safety, and health risks associated with PCPs by race and ethnicity among young adults.

      Comments

      Comment on this review