Literature DB >> 27960129

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

Jennifer Liss Ohayon1, Elicia Cousins2, Phil Brown3, Rachel Morello-Frosch4, Julia Green Brody5.   

Abstract

As the number of personal exposure studies expands and trends favor greater openness and transparency in the health sciences, ethical issues arise around reporting back individual results for contaminants without clear health guidelines. Past research demonstrates that research participants want their results even when the health implications are not known. The experiences of researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) in studies that have reported personal chemical exposures can provide insights about ethical and practical approaches while also revealing areas of continued uncertainty. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and nine IRB members from seven personal exposure studies across the United States to investigate their experiences and attitudes about the report-back process. Researchers reported multiple benefits of report-back, including increasing retention and recruitment, advancing environmental health literacy, empowering study participants to take actions to reduce exposures, encouraging shifts in government and industry practices, and helping researchers discover sources of exposure through participant consultation. Researchers also reported challenges, including maintaining ongoing contact with participants, adopting protocols for notification of high exposures to chemicals without health guidelines, developing meaningful report-back materials, and resource limitations. IRB members reported concern for potential harm to participants, such as anxiety about personal results and counterproductive behavior changes. In contrast, researchers who have conducted personal report-back in their studies said that participants did not appear overly alarmed and noted that worry can be a positive outcome to motivate action to reduce harmful exposures. While key concerns raised during the early days of report-back have been substantially resolved for scientists with report-back experience, areas of uncertainty remain. These include ethical tensions surrounding the responsibility of researchers to leverage study results and resources to assist participants in policy or community-level actions to reduce chemical exposures, and how to navigate report-back to vulnerable populations.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioethics; Biomonitoring; Community-based participatory research; Exposure assessment; Exposure reduction; Results communication; Risk communication

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27960129      PMCID: PMC5412511          DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.12.003

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


  38 in total

1.  PRISM: a planned risk information seeking model.

Authors:  LeeAnn Kahlor
Journal:  Health Commun       Date:  2010-06

2.  The emergence of an ethical duty to disclose genetic research results: international perspectives.

Authors:  Bartha Maria Knoppers; Yann Joly; Jacques Simard; Francine Durocher
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2006-07-26       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 3.  Integrating research and action: a systematic review of community-based participatory research to address health disparities in environmental and occupational health in the USA.

Authors:  W K Cook
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.710

4.  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

5.  The precautionary principle in environmental science.

Authors:  D Kriebel; J Tickner; P Epstein; J Lemons; R Levins; E L Loechler; M Quinn; R Rudel; T Schettler; M Stoto
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  The Emergence of Environmental Health Literacy-From Its Roots to Its Future Potential.

Authors:  Symma Finn; Liam O'Fallon
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2015-06-30       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  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

8.  A new spin on research translation: the Boston Consensus Conference on Human Biomonitoring.

Authors:  Jessica W Nelson; Madeleine Kangsen Scammell; Rebecca Gasior Altman; Thomas F Webster; David M Ozonoff
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 9.031

9.  Reporting individual results for biomonitoring and environmental exposures: lessons learned from environmental communication case studies.

Authors:  Julia Green Brody; Sarah C Dunagan; Rachel Morello-Frosch; Phil Brown; Sharyle Patton; Ruthann A Rudel
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2014-05-26       Impact factor: 5.984

10.  Counseling patients on preventing prenatal environmental exposures--a mixed-methods study of obstetricians.

Authors:  Naomi E Stotland; Patrice Sutton; Jessica Trowbridge; Dylan S Atchley; Jeanne Conry; Leonardo Trasande; Barbara Gerbert; Annemarie Charlesworth; Tracey J Woodruff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  14 in total

1.  A process for creating data report-back tools to improve equity in environmental health.

Authors:  Kathryn S Tomsho; Erin Polka; Stacey Chacker; David Queeley; Marty Alvarez; Madeleine K Scammell; Karen M Emmons; Rima E Rudd; Gary Adamkiewicz
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2022-07-12       Impact factor: 7.123

2.  Perspectives of peripartum people on opportunities for personal and collective action to reduce exposure to everyday chemicals: Focus groups to inform exposure report-back.

Authors:  Catherine Oksas; Julia Green Brody; Phil Brown; Katherine E Boronow; Erin DeMicco; Annemarie Charlesworth; Maribel Juarez; Sarah Geiger; Susan L Schantz; Tracey J Woodruff; Rachel Morello-Frosch; Amy M Padula
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2022-03-26       Impact factor: 8.431

3.  Reporting to parents on children's exposures to asthma triggers in low-income and public housing, an interview-based case study of ethics, environmental literacy, individual action, and public health benefits.

Authors:  Laura J Perovich; Jennifer Liss Ohayon; Elicia Mayuri Cousins; Rachel Morello-Frosch; Phil Brown; Gary Adamkiewicz; Julia Green Brody
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2018-05-21       Impact factor: 5.984

4.  Communicating environmental exposure results and health information in a community-based participatory research study.

Authors:  Luz Claudio; Jalisa Gilmore; Mohana Roy; Barbara Brenner
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-06-25       Impact factor: 3.295

5.  Discovery of common chemical exposures across three continents using silicone wristbands.

Authors:  Holly M Dixon; Georgina Armstrong; Michael Barton; Alan J Bergmann; Melissa Bondy; Mary L Halbleib; Winifred Hamilton; Erin Haynes; Julie Herbstman; Peter Hoffman; Paul Jepson; Molly L Kile; Laurel Kincl; Paul J Laurienti; Paula North; L Blair Paulik; Joe Petrosino; Gary L Points; Carolyn M Poutasse; Diana Rohlman; Richard P Scott; Brian Smith; Lane G Tidwell; Cheryl Walker; Katrina M Waters; Kim A Anderson
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 2.963

6.  Identifying Issues and Priorities in Reporting Back Environmental Health Data.

Authors:  Erin Lebow-Skelley; Sarah Yelton; Brandi Janssen; Esther Erdei; Melanie A Pearson
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 3.390

7.  Health and social concerns about living in three communities affected by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS): A qualitative study in Australia.

Authors:  Cathy Banwell; Tambri Housen; Kayla Smurthwaite; Susan Trevenar; Liz Walker; Katherine Todd; May Rosas; Martyn Kirk
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-01-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Data Clothing and BigBarChart: Designing Physical Data Reports on Indoor Pollutants for Individuals and Communities.

Authors:  Laura J Perovich; Phoebe Cai; Amber Guo; Kristin Zimmerman; Katherine Paseman; Dayanna Espinoza Silva; Julia G Brody
Journal:  IEEE Comput Graph Appl       Date:  2021-01-15       Impact factor: 2.088

9.  MCR: Open-Source Software to Automate Compilation of Health Study Report-Back.

Authors:  Erin Polka; Ellen Childs; Alexa Friedman; Kathryn S Tomsho; Birgit Claus Henn; Madeleine K Scammell; Chad W Milando
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-05       Impact factor: 3.390

10.  A FAUSTIAN BARGAIN THAT UNDERMINES RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS' PRIVACY RIGHTS AND RETURN OF RESULTS.

Authors:  Barbara J Evans; Susan M Wolf
Journal:  Fla Law Rev       Date:  2019-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.