Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27960129›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental research2017

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

Jennifer Liss Ohayon, Elicia Cousins, Phil Brown, Rachel Morello-Frosch, Julia Green Brody

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Use of Theory-Driven Report Back to Promote Lung Cancer Risk Reduction.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Mapping the Landscape of Environmental Health Literacy: Trends, Gaps, and Future Directions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Not whether but how: the ethics and Language of reporting back individual results.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer Liss OhayonSilent Spring Institute, 320 Nevada Street, Suite 302, 02460 Newton, MA, USA. Electronic address: ohayon@silentspring.org.
Elicia CousinsDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology and Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, 310INV, 02115 Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: cousins.e@husky.neu.edu.
Phil BrownDepartment of Sociology and Anthropology and Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, 310INV, 02115 Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: p.brown@neu.edu.
Rachel Morello-FroschSchool of Public Health and Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, 130 Mulford Hall, 94720 Berkeley, CA, USA. Electronic address: rmf@berkeley.edu.
Julia Green BrodySilent Spring Institute, 320 Nevada Street, Suite 302, 02460 Newton, MA, USA. Electronic address: brody@silentspring.org.
Northeastern University · USSilent Spring Institute · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · US

Funding

Transdisciplinary Training at the Intersection of Environmental Health Science and Social Science (EH+SS)T32ES023769 · NIEHS · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI BRODY, JULIA GREEN, BROWN, PHILIP M. · 2015 to 2025
$3.0M
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 T32 ES023769
6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureEthics Committees, ResearchResearch PersonnelAttitudeEndocrine DisruptorsEnvironmental MonitoringHumansUnited StatesEndocrine DisruptorsBioethicsBiomonitoringCommunity-based participatory researchExposure assessmentExposure reductionResults communicationRisk communication

Identifiers

PMID27960129
PMCPMC5412511
OpenAlexW2560171093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.