ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2019
A Mixed Methods Evaluation of Sharing Air Pollution Results with Study Participants via Report-Back Communication.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies to facilitate the report-back of research results: a systematic review of methods and evaluations.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2026Pooled it
- Development of personal air pollution exposure report-back materials to Household Air Pollution Intervention Network (HAPIN) trial participants in Guatemala and Rwanda: a qualitative study.BMJ global health · 2025Trial
- The Effect of Individual or Study-Wide Report-Back on Knowledge, Concern, and Exposure-Reducing Behaviors Related to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Trial
- Outcomes from Returning Individual versus Only Study-Wide Biomonitoring Results in an Environmental Exposure Study Using the Digital Exposure Report-Back Interface (DERBI).Environmental health perspectives · 2021Trial
- Lessons from the first U.S. school districts with real-time indoor environmental quality (IEQ) sensors in classrooms: benefits, barriers and opportunities.Environmental research, health : ERH · 2026Article
- A personalized tutorial to improve understanding of individual chemical results and opportunities for reducing exposure.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Article
- Experiences of clinicians engaged in report-back of individual chemical exposures in two pregnancy cohorts.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2026Article
- PFAS in Rural U.S. Well Water: Using Participatory Science to Identify and Communicate Results to Address Risks.Environmental science & technology · 2025Article
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Gene-Environment Interaction Research.Genetic epidemiology · 2025Review
- Moving Forward with Reporting Back Individual Environmental Health Research Results.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- Communicating Results of Drinking Water Tests From Private Wells: Designing Report-Back Materials to Facilitate Understanding.Journal of environmental health · 2023Article
- Informing about the invisible: communicating en route air pollution and noise exposure to cyclists and pedestrians using focus groups.European transport research review · 2022Article
- MCR: Open-Source Software to Automate Compilation of Health Study Report-Back.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Use of Exposomic Methods Incorporating Sensors in Environmental Epidemiology.Current environmental health reports · 2021Review
- Reporting Results of a Community-Based In-Home Exposure Monitoring Study: Developing Methods and Materials.Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action · 2021Article
- Assessment of Multipollutant Exposures During Pregnancy Using Silicone Wristbands.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We implemented a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods evaluation of an air pollution data report-back to study participants in Chelsea, Massachusetts. We aimed to determine whether the report-back was effective in the following three ways: engagement, understandability, and actionability for the participants. We also evaluated participants' valuation of the report-back information and process. The evaluation involved both qualitative components, such as ethnographic observation, and quantitative components, such as closed-ended questionnaires and demographic data. The participants who engaged in the report-back process were significantly different from those who did not engage both in terms of their demographics, and in their indoor air pollutant concentrations. Participant understanding generally corresponded with the intended meaning of the research team, suggesting successful data communication. Additionally, many of the participants reported that they were inspired to take action in order to reduce their indoor air pollutant exposure as a result of the report-back process and information provided. These results identify areas of improvement for engagement, particularly regarding populations that may have higher exposures. This work outlines a framework with which to contextualize and evaluate the success of engagement with report-back efforts. Such evaluations can allow research teams to assess whether they are providing information that is equitably useful and actionable for all participants.
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.