Courtney M Giannini1, Robert L Herrick1, Jeanette M Buckholz1, Alex R Daniels1, Frank M Biro2, Susan M Pinney3. 1. Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States. 2. Division of Adolescent Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, United States; Department of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States. 3. Department of Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, United States. Electronic address: susan.pinney@uc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Measurement of environmental biomarkers in biomedia is increasingly used as a method of exposure characterization in human population studies. Reporting the results of biomarker measurements back to study participants has been controversial, including questions of ethics and whether the study participants would want to receive and would understand the results. METHODS: Recently we mailed individual measurements of two serum biomarkers, perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to participants in three exposure studies of persons living in the Ohio River Valley, of whom 60 were parents of children who had been sampled. Many had serum concentrations of PFOA above the US population 95th percentile value. Reporting forms used in the three studies were somewhat different (either tables or charts for comparison to US population values) and varied in complexity. With all reports, we included information about concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in the general population, and a survey designed to ascertain the opinions of the study participants about the information they received. RESULTS: Approximately 33% (273/821) returned the survey, and of those, 96% reported that they were pleased that we had sent them the report. Most (86%) responded that the results were easy to understand and the enclosed fact sheet was helpful in answering questions (87%). Regarding the amount of information, most felt that we provided the "right amount" (78%) but some "too much" (7%) and some "too little" (15%). The majority (53%) were surprised at their serum concentrations. Of those with serum values > 13.0 ng/mL, 74% responded that they thought their serum concentration was "high", but only 22% of those with serum concentrations ≤5.6 responded that their concentration was "low". Surprisingly, many talked to no one about their levels; those who did were most likely to discuss the report with family members. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting back individual environmental biomarker results is generally well received by study participants, and those with high concentrations perceived them to be high. Questions remain as to why study participants did not discuss their results with others.
BACKGROUND: Measurement of environmental biomarkers in biomedia is increasingly used as a method of exposure characterization in human population studies. Reporting the results of biomarker measurements back to study participants has been controversial, including questions of ethics and whether the study participants would want to receive and would understand the results. METHODS: Recently we mailed individual measurements of two serum biomarkers, perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) to participants in three exposure studies of persons living in the Ohio River Valley, of whom 60 were parents of children who had been sampled. Many had serum concentrations of PFOA above the US population 95th percentile value. Reporting forms used in the three studies were somewhat different (either tables or charts for comparison to US population values) and varied in complexity. With all reports, we included information about concentrations of PFOA and PFOS in the general population, and a survey designed to ascertain the opinions of the study participants about the information they received. RESULTS: Approximately 33% (273/821) returned the survey, and of those, 96% reported that they were pleased that we had sent them the report. Most (86%) responded that the results were easy to understand and the enclosed fact sheet was helpful in answering questions (87%). Regarding the amount of information, most felt that we provided the "right amount" (78%) but some "too much" (7%) and some "too little" (15%). The majority (53%) were surprised at their serum concentrations. Of those with serum values > 13.0 ng/mL, 74% responded that they thought their serum concentration was "high", but only 22% of those with serum concentrations ≤5.6 responded that their concentration was "low". Surprisingly, many talked to no one about their levels; those who did were most likely to discuss the report with family members. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting back individual environmental biomarker results is generally well received by study participants, and those with high concentrations perceived them to be high. Questions remain as to why study participants did not discuss their results with others.
Authors: Judy S LaKind; Lesa L Aylward; Conrad Brunk; Stephen DiZio; Michael Dourson; Daniel A Goldstein; Michael E Kilpatrick; Daniel Krewski; Michael J Bartels; Hugh A Barton; Peter J Boogaard; John Lipscomb; Kannan Krishnan; Monica Nordberg; Miles Okino; Yu-Mei Tan; Claude Viau; Janice W Yager; Sean M Hays Journal: Regul Toxicol Pharmacol Date: 2008-05-22 Impact factor: 3.271
Authors: Frank M Biro; Maida P Galvez; Louise C Greenspan; Paul A Succop; Nita Vangeepuram; Susan M Pinney; Susan Teitelbaum; Gayle C Windham; Lawrence H Kushi; Mary S Wolff Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-08-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Susan M Pinney; Frank M Biro; Gayle C Windham; Robert L Herrick; Lusine Yaghjyan; Antonia M Calafat; Paul Succop; Heidi Sucharew; Kathleen M Ball; Kayoko Kato; Lawrence H Kushi; Robert Bornschein Journal: Environ Pollut Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 8.071
Authors: Robert Wones; Susan M Pinney; Jeanette M Buckholz; Colleen Deck-Tebbe; Ronald Freyberg; Amadeo Pesce Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 2.162
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
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
Authors: Sara A Quandt; Alicia M Doran; Pamela Rao; Jane A Hoppin; Beverly M Snively; Thomas A Arcury Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 9.031
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
Authors: Julia Green Brody; Piera M Cirillo; Katherine E Boronow; Laurie Havas; Marj Plumb; Herbert P Susmann; Krzysztof Z Gajos; Barbara A Cohn Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 11.035
Authors: Johanna Amalia Robinson; Rok Novak; Tjaša Kanduč; Thomas Maggos; Demetra Pardali; Asimina Stamatelopoulou; Dikaia Saraga; Danielle Vienneau; Benjamin Flückiger; Ondřej Mikeš; Céline Degrendele; Ondřej Sáňka; Saul García Dos Santos-Alves; Jaideep Visave; Alberto Gotti; Marco Giovanni Persico; Dimitris Chapizanis; Ioannis Petridis; Spyros Karakitsios; Dimosthenis A Sarigiannis; David Kocman Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-28 Impact factor: 3.390
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