Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28685368›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2017

Community-based participatory research for the study of air pollution: a review of motivations, approaches, and outcomes.

Adwoa Commodore, Sacoby Wilson, Omar Muhammad, Erik Svendsen, John Pearce

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Engaging communities in addressing air quality: a scoping review.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022
    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.

Adwoa CommodoreDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Cannon St., CS303, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA. commodad@musc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9070-0654
Sacoby WilsonMaryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Omar MuhammadLow Country Alliance for Model Communities, North Charleston, SC, USA.
Erik SvendsenDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Cannon St., CS303, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
John PearceDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 135 Cannon St., CS303, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neighborhood level air pollution represents a long-standing issue for many communities that, until recently, has been difficult to address due to the cost of equipment and lack of related expertise. Changes in available technology and subsequent increases in community-based participatory research (CBPR) have drastically improved the ability to address this issue. However, much still needs to be learned as these types of studies are expected to increase in the future. To assist, we review the literature in an effort to improve understanding of the motivations, approaches, and outcomes of air monitoring studies that incorporate CBPR and citizen science (CS) principles. We found that the primary motivations for conducting community-based air monitoring were concerns for air pollution health risks, residing near potential pollution sources, urban sprawl, living in "unmonitored" areas, and a general quest for improved air quality knowledge. Studies were mainly conducted using community led partnerships. Fixed site monitoring was primarily used, while mobile, personal, school-based, and occupational sampling approaches were less frequent. Low-cost sensors can enable thorough neighborhood level characterization; however, keeping the community involved at every step, understanding the limitations and benefits of this type of monitoring, recognizing potential areas of debate, and addressing study challenges are vital for achieving harmony between expected and observed study outcomes. Future directions include assessing currently unregulated pollutants, establishing long-term neighborhood monitoring sites, performing saturation studies, evaluating interventions, and creating CS databases.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchAir PollutantsAir PollutionCommunity ParticipationEnvironmental MonitoringHumansMotivationResidence CharacteristicsAir PollutantsAir qualityCitizen scienceCommunity-based participatory researchExposure assessmentLow-cost sensors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.