Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20604953›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2010

Participatory testing and reporting in an environmental-justice community of Worcester, Massachusetts: a pilot project.

Timothy J Downs, Laurie Ross, Danielle Mucciarone, Maria-Camila Calvache, Octavia Taylor, Robert Goble

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Engaging communities in addressing air quality: a scoping review.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Timothy J DownsEnvironmental Science and Policy Program, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01610, USA. tdowns@clarku.edu
Laurie Ross
Danielle Mucciarone
Maria-Camila Calvache
Octavia Taylor
Robert Goble

Funding

Strengthening Vulnerable Communities in WorcesterR25ES013210 · NIEHS · CLARK UNIVERSITY (WORCESTER, MA) · PI DOWNS, TIMOTHY JOHN · 2004 to 2007
$875k
NIEHS NIH HHS IR25ES013210NIEHS NIH HHS R25 ES013210
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite indoor home environments being where people spend most time, involving residents in testing those environments has been very limited, especially in marginalized communities. We piloted participatory testing and reporting that combined relatively simple tests with actionable reporting to empower residents in Main South/Piedmont neighborhoods of Worcester, Massachusetts. We answered: 1) How do we design and implement the approach for neighborhood and household environments using participatory methods? 2) What do pilot tests reveal? 3) How does our experience inform testing practice?

methodsThe approach was designed and implemented with community partners using community-based participatory research. Residents and researchers tested fourteen homes for: lead in dust indoors, soil outdoors, paint indoors and drinking water; radon in basement air; PM2.5 in indoor air; mold spores in indoor/outdoor air; and drinking water quality. Monitoring of neighborhood particulates by residents and researchers used real-time data to stimulate dialogue.

resultsGiven the newness of our partnership and unforeseen conflicts, we achieved moderate-high success overall based on process and outcome criteria: methods, test results, reporting, lessons learned. The conflict burden we experienced may be attributable less to generic university-community differences in interests/culture, and more to territoriality and interpersonal issues. Lead-in-paint touch-swab results were poor proxies for lead-in-dust. Of eight units tested in summer, three had very high lead-in-dust (>1000 microg/ft2), six exceeded at least one USEPA standard for lead-in-dust and/or soil. Tap water tests showed no significant exposures. Monitoring of neighborhood particulates raised awareness of environmental health risks, especially asthma.

conclusionsTimely reporting back home-toxics' results to residents is ethical but it must be empowering. Future work should fund the active participation of a few motivated residents as representatives of the target population. Although difficult and demanding in time and effort, the approach can educate residents and inform exposure assessment. It should be considered as a core ingredient of comprehensive household toxics' testing, and has potential to improve participant retention and the overall positive impact of long-term environmental health research efforts.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchAir Pollution, IndoorCommunity ParticipationEnvironmental ExposureHousingHumansMassachusettsParticulate MatterPilot ProjectsParticulate Matter

Identifiers

PMID20604953
PMCPMC2914716

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.