Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24886515›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2014

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

Julia Green Brody, Sarah C Dunagan, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Phil Brown, Sharyle Patton, Ruthann A Rudel

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 75 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing 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

75 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mapping the Landscape of Environmental Health Literacy: Trends, Gaps, and Future Directions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Not whether but how: the ethics and Language of reporting back individual results.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

15 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Julia Green BrodySilent Spring Institute, Newton, MA, USA. brody@silentspring.org.
Sarah C Dunagan
Rachel Morello-Frosch
Phil Brown
Sharyle Patton
Ruthann A Rudel

Funding

Ethical and Legal Challenges in Communicating Individual Biomonitoring and PersonR01ES017514 · NIEHS · SILENT SPRING INSTITUTE · PI ADAMKIEWICZ, GARY, BRODY, JULIA GREEN · 2010 to 2014
$2.8M
NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES017514NIEHS NIH HHS R01ES017514
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Measurement methods for chemicals in biological and personal environmental samples have expanded rapidly and become a cornerstone of health studies and public health surveillance. These measurements raise questions about whether and how to report individual results to study participants, particularly when health effects and exposure reduction strategies are uncertain. In an era of greater public participation and open disclosure in science, researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) need new guidance on changing norms and best practices. Drawing on the experiences of researchers, IRBs, and study participants, we discuss ethical frameworks, effective methods, and outcomes in studies that have reported personal results for a wide range of environmental chemicals. Belmont Report principles and community-based participatory research ethics imply responsibilities to report individual results, and several recent biomonitoring guidance documents call for individual reports. Meaningful report-back includes contextual information about health implications and exposure reduction strategies. Both narrative and graphs are helpful. Graphs comparing an individual's results with other participants in the study and benchmarks, such as the National Exposure Report, are helpful, but must be used carefully to avoid incorrect inferences that higher results are necessarily harmful or lower results are safe. Methods can be tailored for specific settings by involving participants and community members in planning. Participants and researchers who have participated in report-back identified benefits: increasing trust in science, retention in cohort studies, environmental health literacy, individual and community empowerment, and motivation to reduce exposures. Researchers as well as participants gained unexpected insights into the characteristics and sources of environmental contamination. Participants are almost universally eager to receive their results and do not regret getting them. Ethical considerations and empirical experience both support study participants' right to know their own results if they choose, so report-back should become the norm in studies that measure personal exposures. Recent studies provide models that are compiled in a handbook to help research partnerships that are planning report-back. Thoughtful report-back can strengthen research experiences for investigators and participants and expand the translation of environmental health research in communities.

Indexed as

CommunicationEnvironmental ExposureCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationEnvironmental HealthEnvironmental MonitoringFemaleHumans

Identifiers

PMID24886515
PMCPMC4098947

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.