+1 Recommend
    • Review: found
    Is Open Access

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

    Risk Perception and Use of Personal Care Products by Race and Ethnicity among A Diverse PopulationCrossref
    I recommend Accept with minor revisions.
    Average rating:
        Rated 3.5 of 5.
    Level of importance:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of validity:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Level of completeness:
        Rated 3 of 5.
    Level of comprehensibility:
        Rated 4 of 5.
    Competing interests:

    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.

      Review information

      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

      Review provided by Dr Vivan Patel, University College London

      The manuscript outlines a study undertaken to understand the differences in risk perception regarding PCP use among individuals of different racial identities. A cross-sectional survey was deployed, which was answered by college students.  This study contributes to the body of literature by emphasising the possibility that various racial/ethnic groups may perceive risk at higher levels. This could be a sign of a problem with environmental health awareness, as well as a lack of knowledge about current, ineffective regulations, opaque product packaging, and resources that can help consumers make decisions about PCP products.

      I recommend Accept with minor revisions.

      Firstly, a section on missingness of the data needs to be included, and the patterns of missingness be analysed to understand whether there was a confounding factor among the survey participants that may have caused non-compliance.

      Secondly, while the discussion is rich and analyses several perspectives, there is limited reference of the mindsets and perceptions of college students, and factors that may affect their choices compared to adults. Greater mention can be made of this rather than broader attempted generalizations.

      Thirdly, while social media use and its impact are mentioned, more references can be made to studies impacting the use of social media amongst college students, the propagation of ‘trends’, and the impact these have on PCP use and risk perceptions.

      Lastly, small errors in the results section exist, under the Risk Perception of Personal Care Products section, where Asian is mentioned twice when comparing risk perceptions regarding PCP regulation and these should be rectified.


      Comment on this review