ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives2016
The Legal Implications of Report Back in Household Exposure Studies.
Review in Environmental health perspectives, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Use of Theory-Driven Report Back to Promote Lung Cancer Risk Reduction.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Gene-Environment Interaction Research.Genetic epidemiology · 2025Review
- A Personalized Intervention to Increase Environmental Health Literacy and Readiness to Change in a Northern Nevada Population: Effects of Environmental Chemical Exposure Report-Back.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Article
- Moving Forward with Reporting Back Individual Environmental Health Research Results.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Relationships between House Characteristics and Exposures to Metal(loid)s and Synthetic Organic Contaminants Evaluated Using Settled Indoor Dust.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Alleviating Environmental Health Disparities Through Community Science and Data Integration.Frontiers in sustainable food systems · 2021Article
- Considerations for an integrated population health databank in Africa: lessons from global best practices.Wellcome open research · 2021Article
- Perceived Risks, Benefits, and Interest in Participating in Environmental Health Studies That Share Personal Exposure Data: A U.S. Survey of Prospective Participants.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Article
- Privacy Risks of Sharing Data from Environmental Health Studies.Environmental health perspectives · 2020Article
- Communicating environmental exposure results and health information in a community-based participatory research study.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Re-identification Risks in HIPAA Safe Harbor Data: A study of data from one environmental health study.Technology science · 2017Article
- After the Research Is Done: Legal Obligations for Participants in Household Exposure Studies.Environmental health perspectives · 2016Article
- Applying the NIEHS translational research framework (NIEHS-TRF) to map clinical environmental health research trajectories.Nursing outlookArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScientists conducting research into household air or dust pollution must decide whether, when, and how to disclose to study participants their individual results. A variety of considerations factor into this decision, but one factor that has not received attention until now is the possibility that study participants' receipt of their results might create legal duties under environmental, property, landlord-tenant, or other laws.
objectivesThis article examines relevant laws and regulations and explores the scope of participants' legal duties and the resulting legal and ethical consequences for researchers. Participants could be required in some situations to disclose the presence of certain chemicals when selling or renting their homes or to frequent visitors. The article discusses hypothetical case studies involving the reporting back of results regarding lead, polychlorinated biphenyls, and phthalates. DISCUSSION: The potential legal duties of study participants have both ethical and legal implications for researchers. Issues include whether the legal consequences for participants should affect the decision whether to report back individual results, how researchers should disclose the legal risks to participants during the informed consent process, and whether researchers would be liable to study participants for legal or economic harm arising from reporting study results to them. The review provides recommendations for language that researchers could use in the informed consent process to disclose the legal risks.
conclusionsResearchers should still report back to participants who want to see their results, but they should disclose the risks of obtaining the information as part of the informed consent process. Citation: Goho SA. 2016. The legal implications of report back in household exposure studies. Environ Health Perspect 124:1662-1670; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP187.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.