Literature DB >> 10092437

Communicating their individual results to participants in an environmental exposure study: insights from clinical ethics.

W Deck1, T Kosatsky.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to formulate a framework for determining what information to communicate to individual subjects of a study measuring biomarkers of exposure, consistent with the principles of ethical clinical and research practice. Methods consisted of review of the scope of environmental exposure studies, including the use of biomarker measurement in clinical medicine and environmental research and the relevant principles of clinical ethics and research practice. An exposure biomarker study is designed to elucidate constitutional, behavioral, and environmental determinants of tissue concentrations of exogenous substances. Of itself, it is not designed to measure risk relations, those being the relation between biomarker levels and health outcomes. In many settings, measured tissue biomarker concentrations fall below those known or reasonably predicted to cause disease. Ethical clinical and research practice, aiming to maximize autonomy and beneficence and to minimize harm, requires that study findings concerning the determinants of exposure be communicated to study participants. In addition, investigators should reference clinical action levels beyond which individual biomarker results are routinely communicated to participants. When biomarkers have no known relation to risk, or when levels fall below action levels, it may be preferable not to communicate individual results, if this arrangement has been formalized at the time of informed consent. Copyright 1999 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10092437     DOI: 10.1006/enrs.1998.3946

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Res        ISSN: 0013-9351            Impact factor:   6.498


  9 in total

1.  Researcher and institutional review board perspectives on the benefits and challenges of reporting back biomonitoring and environmental exposure results.

Authors:  Jennifer Liss Ohayon; Elicia Cousins; Phil Brown; Rachel Morello-Frosch; Julia Green Brody
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2016-12-10       Impact factor: 6.498

2.  Improving disclosure and consent: "is it safe?": new ethics for reporting personal exposures to environmental chemicals.

Authors:  Julia Green Brody; Rachel Morello-Frosch; Phil Brown; Ruthann A Rudel; Rebecca Gasior Altman; Margaret Frye; Cheryl A Osimo; Carla Pérez; Liesel M Seryak
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2007-07-31       Impact factor: 9.308

3.  Sharing unexpected biomarker results with study participants.

Authors:  Ann D Hernick; M Kathryn Brown; Susan M Pinney; Frank M Biro; Kathleen M Ball; Robert L Bornschein
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-09-29       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 4.  The Legal Implications of Report Back in Household Exposure Studies.

Authors:  Shaun A Goho
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 9.031

5.  Participant experiences in a breastmilk biomonitoring study: a qualitative assessment.

Authors:  Nerissa Wu; Michael D McClean; Phil Brown; Ann Aschengrau; Thomas F Webster
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2009-02-18       Impact factor: 5.984

Review 6.  Toxic ignorance and right-to-know in biomonitoring results communication: a survey of scientists and study participants.

Authors:  Rachel Morello-Frosch; Julia Green Brody; Phil Brown; Rebecca Gasior Altman; Ruthann A Rudel; Carla Pérez
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2009-02-28       Impact factor: 5.984

7.  Easier said than done: challenges of applying the Ecohealth approach to the study on heavy metals exposure among indigenous communities of the Peruvian Amazon.

Authors:  Cynthia Anticona; Anna-Britt Coe; Ingvar A Bergdahl; Miguel San Sebastian
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 8.  Ethical issues in environmental health research.

Authors:  Richard R Sharp
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Incidental genetic findings in randomized clinical trials: recommendations from the Genomics and Randomized Trials Network (GARNET).

Authors:  Ebony B Bookman; Corina Din-Lovinescu; Bradford B Worrall; Teri A Manolio; Siiri N Bennett; Cathy Laurie; Daniel B Mirel; Kimberly F Doheny; Garnet L Anderson; Kate Wehr; Richard Weinshilboum; Donna T Chen
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 11.117

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.