Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Arsenic is a well-known toxin which may contaminate household water. It is harmful when ingested over prolonged periods of time. As a result, public health experts recommend that water should be screened and treated to prevent arsenic ingestion. In the United States, the responsibility of testing and treatment of private wells falls on homeowners. Despite recommendations for routine screening, this is rarely done.

Objectives:

To assess the prevalence of well water use in a Midwestern patient population, how patients and clinicians perceive the risks of arsenic in well water, and whether additional resources on well water testing are desired. These findings will be used to influence tools for clinicians regarding symptom and examination findings of chronic arsenic exposure and potentiate the distribution of informational resources on well water testing.

Methods:

Surveys were sent via email to all actively practicing primary care clinicians at the Mayo Clinic in the United States Midwest, and all active adult patients at the Mayo Clinic in the same region. Our team analyzed survey data to determine whether both patients and clinicians are aware of the health effects of chronic arsenic toxicity from well water, the need for routine well water testing and whether each group wants more information on the associated risks.

Results:

Both patients and primary care clinicians worry about arsenic exposure. Patients with well water are concerned about their water safety yet feel uninformed about testing options. Clinicians do not know how prevalent well water use is among their patients, feel uninformed about the chronic risks of arsenic exposure and the physical examination associated with it. Both groups unanimously want more information on testing options.

Conclusions:

Our findings show a significant reliance on well water use in the American Midwest, and unanimous support for the need for further well water testing information and resources for patients and their clinicians.

Keywords

arsenic health risk rural health toxicity well water

Introduction

Arsenic is a well-known toxin which may contaminate potable water sources. It is harmful when ingested over prolonged periods of time, resulting in negative health outcomes. As a result, public health experts recommend that water should be screened and treated to prevent arsenic ingestion. In the United States this is routinely done for communal water, though responsibility for testing and treatment of water from private wells falls on homeowners. Despite recommendations for routine screening, this is rarely done.^1,2

Arsenic cannot be seen, tasted or smelled and can vary in concentration between water wells, even in neighboring areas.³ The variability in arsenic concentration in ground water is due to the arsenic content of the aquifer materials and the varying processes that dissolve arsenic from surrounding sediment into the water.⁴

Chronic arsenic exposure has been associated with the development of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, skin cancer, renal, bladder and lung cancers, polyneuropathy, and cardiac QTc prolongation.^5
-9 While these conditions are correlated with arsenic exposure, the time of exposure and disease latency mean that direct causation is extraordinarily difficult to prove.¹⁰ Emerging data show that exposure to arsenic during pregnancy is associated with gestational diabetes in the pregnant mother and low birth weight of the newborn infant.⁷

Many symptoms attributed to other conditions may in fact be due to chronic arsenic exposure given their overlap in presentation and latency. For example, 1 case reports an adult patient in Minnesota who reported high arsenic concentrations in her private well after she had 4 dogs die.¹¹ She requested arsenic level testing to assess the state of her health, stating that this was not something she was aware of as a health risk previously.

The presence of increased concentrations of water contaminants such as arsenic are associated with greater cancer-related mortality in rural populations.¹² In fact, in a comparative cross-sectional study of 172 pregnant women, umbilical cord blood was collected at the time of delivery and analyzed for 20 inorganic elements. Significant differences were found between 2 elements in urban and rural samples.¹³

Currently 13% of the American population relies on private wells.¹⁴ The majority of the population is serviced by approximately 150 000 public water systems, with the remainder relying on purchased drinking water that must be transported into the area.¹⁴ The Environmental Protection Agency currently regulates 90 common drinking water contaminants by establishing maximum contaminant levels of substances such as arsenic, nitrates, uranium, and toxic organic entities including pesticides and solvents.¹⁴ Arsenic is found in substantial amounts throughout the United States, aside from the Southeast.⁴ In a study by the United States Geological Survey, half of all wells sampled in aquifers used for drinking water nationally had traces of arsenic, with 7% being above the national threshold of 10 µg/L.^2,15,16

American well water is not required to meet the drinking water standards of public water supplies and is often found to contain arsenic.¹⁵ In Minnesota well water is only required to be tested once, as lack of arsenic detection initially is felt to indicate that it is unlikely to be found later.³ Conversely, if it is detected in a newly dug well, it is recommended to be retested 6 months later as levels may vary in the initial months after well construction.¹⁶ In their study analyzing appropriate intervals for well water testing, Mailloux et al¹⁷ concluded that “a single analytical sample of arsenic below a maximum contaminant level is not enough to ensure that drinking water from private wells remains low because of measurement error and because arsenic concentrations change over time” and instead recommend testing at least every 5 years.¹⁷

It is up to well owners to assess their water and eliminate arsenic through commercially obtained water filtration systems. As Zheng and Ayotte¹⁸ write however, “Persistent optimistic bias among well owners against testing and barriers such as cost of treatment mean that a large percentage of the population will not act to reduce their exposure to harmful substances such as arsenic.” A study of 800 households by the Department of Health in Minnesota reported the following reasons in descending order for not testing among home well owners: not concerned about arsenic, not sure what to do or whom to contact, treatment options are too expensive or too difficult to maintain, and lack of time.¹⁹ Furthermore, the survey found that people with less education, lower income, and those who did not know anyone who had tested their well were less likely to install a filtration unit.¹⁹ Similar findings are seen throughout the United States in Maine, New Jersey, and California.^20,21

There is a scarcity of data regarding whether patients and clinicians in rural areas are concerned about or even aware of the serious health risks of chronic arsenic exposure. It is likely that most clinicians do not routinely ask their patients about their use of well water or about arsenic testing. Objective data on this phenomenon is warranted given that well water is commonly used in the Midwest, and that testing, and treatment of water is readily available. Often this is subsidized by local public health authorities or non-governmental organizations. However, structural barriers make rural residents—particularly those with limited health literacy—less likely to have access to health information.²²

The aim of this current study was to collect data from both patients and clinicians on the self-reported prevalence of well water use in the American Midwest and their knowledge regarding the importance of testing for arsenic, including the risks of long-term exposure. To our knowledge, this is the first study elucidating clinician knowledge on the risk and symptomatic presentation of patient arsenic exposure from well water. This study is a qualitative cross-sectional survey of patients’ and providers’ current knowledge on the health risks of arsenic by using an exploratory research methodology through a qualitative model.

The purpose of collecting this data is to inform future tools that clinicians and patients may find useful such as adding an additional question in the social determinants of health registration questionnaire in the electronic medical record regarding the use of well water. This would inform clinicians regarding an increased risk of well water exposure to arsenic causing medical symptoms and potentiate the distribution of informational resources on the importance and coordination of well water testing in their specific region(s). As Hendryx et al¹² stated, “better understanding of rural environmental health risks has implications for both population health and health care treatment demands that are placed on rural health care systems.”

Methods

Study Overview and Population

This study is a cross-sectional survey of patients and clinicians currently active at the Mayo Clinic and the Mayo Clinic Health System in the Midwest of the United States, comprising the states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. This includes Mayo Clinic Rochester and more than forty community-based hospitals and clinics across southern Minnesota, western Wisconsin, and northern Iowa. The study was reviewed and determined to be exempt from the requirement for Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval by the Mayo Clinic. Approval number 23-006613 was granted on July 31, 2023.

Data were collected from clinicians and patients to evaluate their understanding of the risk of arsenic in well water, assess their perception of how common well water use is, and determine whether they wanted additional resources for patients on how to test their specific well. Primary care physicians and researchers with expertise in survey creation were involved in developing and editing the questionnaires. Content validity of the study questionnaires was assessed by performing a pilot study of 11 volunteer patients and 10 volunteer clinicians from multiple health systems. Survey questions and results were felt to accurately assess the content domain. No further changes were made to the questionnaire prior to distribution.

Study Methods

Emails containing the survey and a consent script were sent to 2 separate groups. The first was sent to physicians and advanced practice practitioners (including nurse practitioners and physician assistants) who were assigned a panel of primary care patients within the specialties of Family Medicine, Community Internal Medicine and Community Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine. The second was sent to all adult patients over the age of 18 years with an email address who had consented to participating in research studies. Active patient and clinician email addresses fitting our study criteria were obtained from existing clinical data repositories. About 280 000 patient email addresses and 670 clinician email addresses were initially included. Those patients and families with a duplicate email address only received 1 survey (resulting in the removal of 22 367 email addresses). Survey sampling is illustrated in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1.

Study protocol for inclusion of patients.

Figure 2.

Study protocol for inclusion of providers.

Survey responses were kept confidential and de-identified prior to analysis or report to study investigators. Non-responders received 2 follow-up reminders to complete the survey. Data was then analyzed by our team and used to determine objectively whether both patients and clinicians are aware of the health effects of arsenic toxicity from well water, the need for routine well water testing and whether each group respectively wants more information on the risks of chronic arsenic toxicity.

Statistical Analysis

Survey questions were reported using frequencies and percentages for those that had answered that they had well water. There were 229 patients that reported they had well water but did not answer any additional survey questions, so they were not included in the denominator. Clinician surveys were also reported using frequencies and percentages. Chi squared test was used to assess relationship between survey answers and demographics of respondents. SAS software (SAS Institute, version 9.4) was used to develop reports.

Results

Participant Characteristics

Of the 257 431 participants that were invited to take the survey, 20 511 opened the survey (8% response rate). Patients at our institution (which is actively involved in many areas of research) are frequently requested to participate in research, and as such we suspect participation fatigue was a factor. Nearly half (44%) of respondents reported primarily using private well water in their home, which is greater than the national rate of 13%,¹⁴ Iowa rate of 7%,²³ Minnesota rate of 22%,³ and Wisconsin rate of almost 25%²⁴ (Table 1 and Figure 3). After excluding 229 patients that did not answer any additional survey questions, 8994 patient participants completed the remainder of the survey. The demographics of the patients are presented in Table 1. The patient respondents were mostly female, White, older, and located in Wisconsin.

Table 1.

Patient Survey Results.

	Total (N = 20 511)
Does your primary home use well water, n (%)
No	10840 (53)
Yes	8994 (44)
Not sure	316 (2)
Yes, but did not answer any additional questions	229 (1)
Missing	132
	Total (N = 8994)
How often do you have your well water tested, n (%)
Never	1923 (21)
Once	1415 (16)
Once a year	1016 (11)
Every 2-5 years	1857 (21)
Every 6-10 years	1214 (14)
Not sure	1547 (17)
Missing	22
How often do you worry about the health effects of your well water on you and your family, n (%)
Never worry about it	3284 (37)
Rarely worry about it	2931 (33)
Sometimes worry about it	2057 (23)
Often worry about it	479 (5)
Always worry about it	219 (2)
Missing	24
Do you worry about arsenic in your well water, n (%)
Never worry about it	5487 (62)
Rarely worry about it	2068 (23)
Sometimes worry about it	1028 (12)
Often worry about it	174 (2)
Always worry about it	102 (1)
Missing	135
Would information on how to test your well water for arsenic be useful to you, n (%)
Not at all useful	856 (10)
Somewhat useful	2601 (29)
Very useful	3108 (35)
Extremely useful	1547 (17)
Not sure how useful	761 (9)
Missing	121
What state do you live in, n (%)
Minnesota	3707 (42)
Wisconsin	4902 (55)
Iowa	221 (3)
Other	27 (0)
Missing	137
How many children under the age of 18 years currently live in your home, n (%)
None	7133 (81)
1-2	1297 (15)
3-4	388 (4)
5 or more	41 (0)
Missing	135
Current age range (years), n (%)
18-30	340 (4)
31-40	625 (7)
41-50	1006 (11)
51-60	1688 (19)
61-70	2826 (32)
71 or more	2346 (27)
Missing	163
What sex do you identify yourself as, n (%)
Female	5432 (62)
Male	3266 (37)
Transgender	7 (0)
I do not identify as female, male, or transgender	4 (0)
I do not wish to answer	125 (1)
Missing	160
Ethnic origin, n (%)
Hispanic or Latino	64 (0)
Not Hispanic or Latino	8224 (95)
I do not wish to answer	367 (4)
Missing	339
Race^a, n (%)
American Indian/Alaskan Native	85 (1)
Asian	39 (0)
Black or African American	24 (0)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	7 (0)
White	8430 (94)
Other	86 (1)
I do not wish to answer	253 (3)

Check all that apply.

Figure 3.

Patient survey participant response to whether they use well water.

Of the 671 clinicians that were invited to take the survey, 121 opened the survey (18% response rate). After excluding the 10 clinicians that did not have an assigned patient panel, a total of 111 clinicians in primary care completed the survey. The demographics of the clinicians are presented in Table 4. The clinician respondents were primarily female, White, aged 31 to 50 years, Family Medicine clinicians located in Southeast Minnesota. All survey results are available in the Supplemental Appendix.

Patient Responses

The distribution of responses from the survey of patients is presented in Tables 1 to 3. More than a third (39%) of patients reported that their well water had never been tested or were unsure if it had (Table 1). Both younger adults aged 18 to 30 years and older adults older than 71 years old reported testing their well water more frequently than other age groups (Table 2). Having children in the home was not associated with worrying about water safety or testing behavior (Table 3). A minority (37%) of patients reported never worrying about the overall health effects of their well water; however, a majority (62%) never worried about arsenic specifically in their well water (Table 3). Respondents in age groups 18 to 30 and 51 to 60 years, and female respondents as a whole, were more likely to often or always worry about health effects of their well water, with women and non-White respondents more likely to worry about arsenic specifically (Table 3). A majority (52.5%) reported information about how to evaluate well water for arsenic would be very or extremely useful.

Table 2.

Patient Demographic Variables in Relation to How Frequently Their Well Water is Tested.

	How often do you have your well water tested for safety?
	Never (N = 1923)	Once (N = 1415)	Once a year (N = 1016)	More than once a year (N = 4618)	Total (N = 8972)	P-value
State, n (%)						.0011^a
Minnesota	882 (24)	571 (15)	371 (10)	1876 (51)	3700 (41)
Wisconsin	970 (20)	794 (16)	590 (12)	2539 (52)	4893 (55)
Iowa	40 (18)	31 (14)	28 (13)	121 (55)	220 (2)
Other	6 (22)	4 (15)	3 (11)	14 (52)	27 (0.3)
Missing	25	15	24	68	132
Children under 18, n (%)						.0183^a
None	1523 (21)	1122 (16)	793 (11)	3680 (52)	7118 (79)
1-2	295 (23)	213 (16)	138 (11)	649 (50)	1295 (14)
3-4	70 (18)	62 (16)	51 (13)	205 (53)	388 (4)
5 or more	9 (22)	4 (10)	12 (29)	16 (39)	41 (5)
Missing	26	14	22	68	130
Age range (years), n (%)						<.0001^a
18-30	70 (21)	27 (8)	45 (13)	198 (58)	340 (4)
31-40	140 (22)	99 (16)	69 (11)	316 (51)	624 (7)
41-50	252 (25)	174 (17)	107 (11)	472 (47)	1005 (11)
51-60	415 (25)	279 (17)	147 (9)	844 (50)	1685 (19)
61-70	598 (21)	456 (16)	340 (12)	1430 (51)	2824 (31)
71 or more	420 (18)	361 (15)	281 (12)	1274 (55)	2336 (26)
Missing	28	19	27	84	158
Gender, n (%)						.0246^a
Female	1145 (21)	837 (15)	601 (11)	2843 (52)	5426 (60)
Male	725 (22)	547 (17)	359 (11)	1626 (50)	3257 (36)
Transgender	2 (29)	0 (0)	0 (0)	5 (71)	7 (0)
Other	1 (25)	1 (25)	1 (25)	1 (25)	4 (0)
Do not wish to answer	24 (19)	13 (10)	26 (21)	62 (50)	125 (1)
Missing	26	17	29	81	153
Race, n (%)						.4044^a
American Indian/Alaskan Native	9 (26)	3 (9)	5 (15)	17 (50)	34 (0)
Asian	7 (29)	1 (4)	4 (17)	12 (50)	24 (0)
Black or African American	3 (23)	2 (15)	1 (33)	7 (54)	13 (0)
Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian	2 (50)	0 (0)	1 (25)	1 (25)	4 (0)
White	1792 (22)	1322 (16)	919 (11)	4286 (52)	8319 (93)
Other	11 (17)	14 (22)	7 (11)	33 (51)	65 (1)
More than 1 race	20 (21)	16 (17)	13 (14)	46 (48)	95 (1)
Do not wish to respond	79 (19)	57 (14)	66 (16)	216 (52)	418 (5)

Chi-Square P-value; There were 22 people who did not answer the question.

Table 3.

Patient Demographic Variables in Relation to Worry about Arsenic in their Well Water.

	Do you worry about arsenic in your well water?
	Never/rarely/sometimes worry (N = 8583)	Often/always worry (N = 276)	Total (N = 8859)	P-value
State, n (%)				.0819^a
Minnesota	3564 (96)	131 (4)	3695 (42)
Wisconsin	4744 (97)	133 (3)	4877 (55)
Iowa	213 (96)	8 (4)	221 (3)
Other	24 (92)	2 (8)	26 (0)
Missing	38	2	40
Children under 18, n (%)				.1839^a
None	6886 (97)	213 (3)	7099 (80)
1-2	1252 (97)	42 (3)	1294 (15)
3-4	371 (96)	17 (4)	388 (4)
5 or more	38 (93)	3 (7)	41 (0)
Missing	36	1	37
Age range (years), n (%)				.0139^a
18-30	328 (96)	12 (4)	340 (4)
31-40	600 (96)	24 (4)	624 (7)
41-50	976 (97)	29 (3)	1005 (11)
51-60	1617 (96)	66 (4)	1683 (19)
61-70	2718 (97)	95 (3)	2813 (32)
71 or more	2280 (98)	48 (2)	2328 (26)
Missing	64	2	66
Gender, n (%)				<.0001^a
Female	5215 (96)	192 (4)	5407 (61)
Male	3180 (98)	75 (2)	3255 (37)
Transgender	7 (100)	0 (0)	7 (0)
Other	2 (50)	2 (50)	4 (0)
Do not wish to answer	120 (96)	5 (4)	125 (1)
Missing	59	2	61
Race, n (%)				<.0001^a
American Indian/Alaskan Native	30 (88)	4 (12)	34 (0)
Asian	21 (88)	3 (13)	24 (0)
Black or African American	11 (85)	2 (15)	13 (0)
Pacific Islander or Native Hawaiian	4 (100)	0 (0)	4 (0)
White	8056 (97)	246 (3)	8302 (94)
Other	59 (91)	6 (9)	65 (1)
More than 1 race	89 (95)	5 (5)	94 (1)
Do not wish to respond	313 (97)	10 (3)	323 (4)

Chi-Square P-value; There were 135 people who did not answer the question.

Clinician Responses

Clinician responses to the survey are summarized in Table 4. Nearly half (43%) of clinicians estimated a very low proportion of their patients use well water at home (0 to 20% of their panel). Only 14.5% of clinicians report frequently or always asking about well water use. Physicians were more likely than advanced practice practitioners to report asking about well water use, and pediatricians were more likely to ask than family medicine or internal medicine physicians. Two-thirds of all clinicians (67%) reported being unaware of the health risks of chronic arsenic exposure in drinking water, and 76% did not know the physical exam findings of chronic arsenic toxicity. More than a third (39%) of clinicians did not know their community’s resources for well water testing. The majority (55%) reported it would be very or extremely useful to have general information about well water testing to share with patients.

Table 4.

Clinician Survey Responses.

	Total (N = 111)
In the past month, how often have you asked your patients if they use well water, n (%)
Never asked	51 (46)
Rarely asked	22 (20)
Sometimes asked	21 (19)
Frequently asked	13 (12)
Always asked	3 (3)
Missing	1
By your estimation, what percentage of your current patients use well water, n (%)
0%-20%	47 (43)
21%-40%	33 (30)
41%-60%	12 (11)
61%-80%	3 (3)
81%-100%	1 (1)
I don’t know	14 (13)
Missing	1
Knowledgeable about the health risks of chronic exposure to arsenic in drinking water, n (%)
Not at all knowledgeable	72 (67)
Slightly knowledgeable	22 (20)
Moderately knowledgeable	12 (11)
Very knowledgeable	2 (2)
Missing	3
Knowledgeable about the physical examination findings of chronic arsenic toxicity in a patient, n (%)
Not at all knowledgeable	82 (76)
Slightly knowledgeable	19 (18)
Moderately knowledgeable	7 (7)
Missing	3
Knowledgeable about your community’s available resources for well water testing, n (%)
Not at all knowledgeable	42 (39)
Slightly knowledgeable	34 (32)
Moderately knowledgeable	20 (19)
Very knowledgeable	10 (9)
Extremely knowledgeable	2 (2)
Missing	3
How useful do you feel it would be to have general information about well water testing for arsenic to share with your patients, n (%)
Not at all useful	6 (6)
Somewhat useful	36 (34)
Neither useful nor not useful	6 (6)
Very useful	50 (47)
Extremely useful	9 (8)
Missing	4
In which region is your primary practice located, n (%)
Southwest Minnesota	16 (15)
Southeast Minnesota (Including Rochester)	57 (53)
Northwest Wisconsin	23 (21)
Southwest Wisconsin	12 (11)
Missing	3
What is your medical specialty, n (%)
Family Medicine	81 (75)
Pediatrics	13 (12)
Internal Medicine	14 (13)
Missing	3
Current age range (years), n (%)
20-30	2 (2)
31-40	28 (26)
41-50	39 (36)
51-60	22 (20)
61-70	13 (12)
71 or more	4 (4)
Missing	3
What sex do you identify as, n (%)
Female	67 (62)
Male	38 (35)
I do not wish to answer	3 (3)
Missing	3
Ethnic origin, n (%)
Hispanic or Latino	1 (1)
Not Hispanic or Latino	97 (92)
I do not wish to answer	8 (8)
Missing	5
Race^a, n (%)
Asian	4 (4)
White	94 (85)
Other	1 (1)
I do not wish to answer	10 (9)

Check all that apply.

Discussion

We found that both patients and primary care clinicians in our survey express worry about arsenic exposure. Patients with well water reported concern about their water safety yet were uninformed about testing options. Clinicians were unaware how prevalent well water use is among their patients, and felt uninformed about the chronic risks of arsenic exposure and the physical examination findings related to them. Both groups indicated a desire for more information on testing availability (82% of patients and 89% of clinicians).

The patient survey results showed significant correlations between advancing age and likelihood to test for arsenic. Those patients who were worried about both the overall health effects of well water and about arsenic in their water were older and more likely to be female. Patients who would find information useful for testing were older, female, and self-identified as White. This is consistent with previous research from the field of psychology which has illustrated greater worry regarding health risks among women versus men.²⁵ The clinician survey results did not show any significant demographic correlations, although pediatricians were more likely to ask their patients if they use well water.

Rural patients are more likely to use well water regularly.^26,27 Existing epidemiologic studies have linked water pollution to health outcomes in rural populations.^21,28 Remarkably, a large proportion of our surveyed patients use well water (45%) compared to the national average (13%), although there is likely an element of response bias favoring participation by those with well water. Primary care clinicians sampled are largely unaware of this prevalence, as over 55% indicated that they either did not know or thought that less than 20% of their patients used well water, although this would be in keeping within published Midwestern statistics.¹⁴

Appropriate filtration is the only method known to prevent the health risks associated with exposure. As is the norm nationally, testing and filtration of personal well water requires attention at the individual homeowner level, beginning with testing, installation of filtration units, and ongoing upkeep.²⁹ Previous research has shown that this is not commonly done for numerous reasons, the most frequently reported being temporal and financial constraints.¹⁹

Existing data shows that patients who are informed about the risks of arsenic in their household water and the methods of testing for arsenic adjust behavior to include switching to treated water for daily consumption for themselves and for their children.^30,31 Murray et al³² report that clinician and nursing staff discussion on the importance of water testing and reminders to test were associated with a twofold increase in the likelihood of water well testing by parents. Our study identifies a gap in knowledge among patients and clinicians that needs to be addressed.

Based on our study results, education for clinicians regarding chronic arsenic exposure will also be needed. Electronic health record functionality could be utilized to identify patients and alert clinicians to this risk. As cost of well water testing has been shown to be a barrier, addressing funding for, and disbursement methods of well water testing kits will also be crucial.

Strengths of this study include the purposeful broad sampling and representation of patients and physicians residing in the American Midwest, the original gathering of data directly from those both using well water and their clinicians, and the congruency of the patient and clinician responses, respectively.

The limitations of our study included self-selection bias in completing the survey and potential misunderstanding of the survey by patients. We received questions from patients regarding municipal versus private well use and current versus prior use. The email inviting participation itself clarified that we were researching personal water wells only, but some patients automatically began the survey without reading the instructions. Similarly, some respondents noted that they had already installed a filter for their personal well and as such, felt that their concern for their water safety had already been lowered as a result. Future work could focus on identifying patient cohorts with the greatest exposure history and consideration of objective screening for conditions deemed to be of greatest risk, as we know that there is a lag between exposure and disease onset.

Conclusion

The safety of ingested well water is an important consideration impacting individual and community health, particularly in rural regions. Our findings demonstrate a paucity of knowledge reported by patients and clinicians about the detrimental health effects of arsenic in well water. They support the need for further well water testing guidance and resources for patients and their primary care clinicians with regards to the presence of arsenic. In addition, information should be available through health systems and community education to inform and educate patients and clinicians about the importance of well water testing and mitigation with filtration of unhealthy water. Further studies are needed to determine the most efficient way to identify patients with well water and to educate these individuals and their clinicians on the importance of regular testing.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319241247984 – Supplemental material for Arsenic Exposure in Well Water From the Perspective of Patients and Providers

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jpc-10.1177_21501319241247984 for Arsenic Exposure in Well Water From the Perspective of Patients and Providers by Dominika Jegen, Julie Maxson, Karen Fischer, Matthew Bernard, Randy Foss, Brandon Hidaka, Rachael Passmore, Jessica Sosso, Stephen K. Stacey and Tom D. Thacher in Journal of Primary Care & Community Health

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to each of the volunteer patients and providers who participated in survey development including Dr Ivana Croghan PhD, librarian Leslie Hassett, and the Mayo Clinic Survey Research Center.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project was supported by the Department of Family Medicine at Mayo Clinic.

ORCID iDs

Dominika Jegen

Randy Foss

Brandon Hidaka

Rachael Passmore

Tom D. Thacher

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Flanagan

Procopio

Spayd

Gleason

Zheng

Improve private well testing outreach efficiency by targeting households based on proximity to a high arsenic well. Sci Total Environ. 2020;738:139689.

Zheng

Flanagan

SV.

The case for universal screening of private well water quality in the U.S. and testing requirements to achieve it: evidence from Arsenic. Environ Health Perspect. 2017;125(8):085002.

Minnesota Department of Health. Arsenic in Well Water. 2023. Accessed November 6, 2023. https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/wells/waterquality/arsenic.html#:~:text=Arsenic%20has%20been%20detected%20in,more%20likely%20in%20some%20areas

Sorg

Chen

Wang

Arsenic species in drinking water wells in the USA with high arsenic concentrations. Water Res. 2014;48:156-169.

Baris

Waddell

Beane Freeman

, et al. Elevated bladder cancer in northern New England: the role of drinking water and Arsenic. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(9):9.

Mostafa

Queen

Cherry

Histopathology of cervical cancer and arsenic concentration in well water: an ecological analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(10):1185.

Greco

Belova

Haskell

Backer

Estimated burden of disease from arsenic in drinking water supplied by domestic wells in the United States. J Water Health. 2019;17(5):801-812.

Amin

Ross

Lee

Guy

Stafford

Patterns of ovarian cancer and uterine cancer mortality and incidence in the contiguous USA. Sci Total Environ. 2019;697:134128.

Wade

Xia

Mumford

, et al. Cardiovascular disease and arsenic exposure in Inner Mongolia, China: a case control study. Environ Health. 2015;14:35.

10.

Amolegbe

Carlin

Henry

Heacock

Trottier

Suk

WA.

Understanding exposures and latent disease risk within the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Superfund Research Program. Exp Biol Med. 2022;247(7):529-537.

11.

Jegen

Jannetto

PJ.

What’s in your water? A well-known risk for arsenic toxicity. J Rural Med. 2023;18(2):149-153.

12.

Hendryx

Fedorko

Halverson

Pollution sources and mortality rates across rural-urban areas in the United States. J Rural Health. 2010;26(4):383-391.

13.

Cottrell

Thomas

Mitchell

, et al. Rural and urban differences in prenatal exposure to essential and toxic elements. J Toxicol Environ Health A: Curr Issues. 2018;81(23):1214-1223.

14.

Patel

Hecht

Cradock

Edwards

Ritchie

LD.

Drinking water in the United States: implications of water safety, access, and consumption. Ann Rev Nutr. 2020;40:345-373.

15.

Erickson

Swanner

Ziegler

Havig

JR.

Months-long spike in aqueous arsenic following domestic well installation and disinfection: short- and long-term drinking water quality implications. J Hazard Mater. 2021;414:125409.

16.

Erickson

Malenda

Berquist

EC.

How or when samples are collected affects measured arsenic concentration in new drinking water wells. Ground Water. 2018;56(6):921-933.

17.

Mailloux

Procopio

Bakker

, et al. Recommended sampling intervals for arsenic in private wells. Ground Water. 2021;59(1):80-89.

18.

Zheng

Ayotte

JD.

At the crossroads: hazard assessment and reduction of health risks from arsenic in private well waters of the northeastern United States and Atlantic Canada. Sci Total Environ. 2015;505:1237-1247.

19.

Minnesota Department of Health. Data-Driven Outreach for Private Well Users: Findings from a Statewide Survey of Households on Private Wells with Elevated Levels of Arsenic. 2016. Accessed November 6, 2023. https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/water/docs/cwf/hhsurveyreport.pdf

20.

Flanagan

Spayd

Procopio

Chillrud

Braman

Zheng

Arsenic in private well water part 1 of 3: impact of the New Jersey Private Well Testing Act on household testing and mitigation behavior. Sci Total Environ. 2016;562:999-1009.

21.

Pace

Balazs

Bangia

, et al. Inequities in drinking water quality among domestic well communities and community water systems, California, 2011-2019. Am J Public Health. 2022;112(1):88-97.

22.

Chen

Orom

Hay

, et al. Differences in rural and urban health information access and use. J Rural Health. 2019;35(3):405-417.

23.

Iowa State University. Drinking Water Quality in Iowa-Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. 2024. Accessed January 14, 2024. https://naturalresources.extension.iastate.edu/drinking-water-quality-iowa#:~:text=Private%20Wells-,Private%20wells%20can%20generally%20be%20thought%20of%20as%20drinking%20water,individuals%2C%20rely%20on%20private%20wells

24.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wells. n.d. Accessed January 14, 2024. https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/Wells#:~:text=About%20one-quarter%20of%20Wisconsin%27s%20population%20drinks,water%20drawn%20from%20over%20800%2C000%20private%20wells

25.

MacSwain

Sherry

Stewart

Watt

Hadjistavropoulos

Graham

AR.

Gender differences in health anxiety: an investigation of the interpersonal model of health anxiety. Pers Individ Dif. 2009;47(8):938-943.

26.

Gonzalez Rodriguez

Rietveld

Longley

van Halem

Arsenic contamination of rural community wells in Nicaragua: a review of two decades of experience. Sci Total Environ. 2019;657:1441-1449.

27.

Zheng

Lessons learned from arsenic mitigation among private well households. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2017;4(3):373-382.

28.

Howarth

Eiser

AR.

Environmentally mediated health disparities. Am J Med. 2023;136(6):518-522.

29.

Yang

Flanagan

Chillrud

, et al. Reduction in drinking water arsenic exposure and health risk through arsenic treatment among private well households in Maine and New Jersey, USA. Sci Total Environ. 2020;738:139683.

30.

Anderson

Bear

Zacher

, et al. Implementing a community-led arsenic mitigation intervention for private well users in American Indian communities: a qualitative evaluation of the strong heart water study program. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2023;20(3):2.

31.

Karagas

Murray

Impact of receipt of private well arsenic test results on maternal use of contaminated drinking water in a U.S. population. Sci Total Environ. 2018;643:1005-1012.

32.

Murray

Olson

Palmer

, et al. Private well water testing promotion in pediatric preventive care: a randomized intervention study. Prev Med Rep. 2020;20:101209.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.09 MB