142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition

Annual Meeting Recordings are now available for purchase

310439
Experience and perceptions of urban rats among low-income residents in Baltimore, Maryland

142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition (November 15 - November 19, 2014): http://www.apha.org/events-and-meetings/annual
Monday, November 17, 2014

Danielle German, PhD, MPH , Department of Health, Behavior & Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
Carl Latkin, PhD , Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
Background: Little is known about the psychosocial experience of rat infestation in urban settings. Based on qualitative data showing rats and trash described as neighborhood stressors, this study examined rat exposure and perceptions of eradication response among low-income urban residents in Baltimore, Maryland.

Methods: Cross-sectional survey assessed socio-demographics, perceived neighborhood disorder, attitudes and perceptions of rats among participants recruited through targeted outreach (n=448) from 2010-2011. Bivariate and multivariate regression examined: 1) socio-demographic and neighborhood factors associated with perceived problematic rat prevalence and frequent rat exposure, 2) attitudes and perceptions of rats in high and low rat areas, and 3) individual, neighborhood, and city factors associated with individual rat eradication.

Findings: 32% reported rats were a big problem on their block. Rats were perceived as most problematic among those who saw rats approximately daily on their block (35%) or elsewhere in the neighborhood (50%). Controlling for individual characteristics, neighborhood disorder was substantially higher in high rat areas and depressive symptoms were higher in those characterized as problem rat areas. Attitudes towards rats were similarly negative across neighborhood rat levels and overall more negative in problem rat areas. Those in high rat areas were less likely to report neighbor engagement in rat eradication, know how to report rat problems to the city, and believe the city would act on reports. Those reporting high rat problems were less likely to believe there were things they could do towards eradication.  Individual rat response was stronger among those reporting positive rat response within their neighborhood and from the city.

Conclusions: Rats are frequently encountered by impoverished residents in this setting and are overwhelmingly perceived negatively. More attention is needed to appreciate and address the psychosocial impact and environmental justice aspects of rat infestation in urban areas. Multilevel community-based approaches may be particularly warranted.

Learning Areas:

Advocacy for health and health education
Environmental health sciences
Planning of health education strategies, interventions, and programs
Protection of the public in relation to communicable diseases including prevention or control
Public health or related public policy
Social and behavioral sciences

Learning Objectives:
Describe the frequency of rat exposure among low-income Baltimore residents; Describe the frequency of rat exposure considered to be problematic among low-income Baltimore residents; Describe individual and neighborhood characteristics associated with problem rat areas; Compare perceptions of rats among residents in high and low rat exposure areas; Discuss perceived rat eradication efforts at the resident, neighbor, and city level in high and low rat areas.

Keyword(s): Community-Based Health, Built Environment

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I have more than 15 years of experience with studies of the social context of health among marginalized populations in urban settings. Among my scientific interests has been the examination of social network and neighborhood factors associated with health among low-income populations.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.