ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
Identifying Issues and Priorities in Reporting Back Environmental Health Data.
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Experiences of clinicians engaged in report-back of individual chemical exposures in two pregnancy cohorts.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2026Article
- Developing a Social Responsibility Pilot Tool to Reduce Helicopter Research and Improve Social Benefit: A Cleanup Site Case Study.Environmental health insights · 2026Article
- Not whether but how: the ethics and Language of reporting back individual results.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025Article
- Developing Requirements for a Standardized System to Return Individual Research Results Back to Study Participants: Narrative Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2025Review
- 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
- Integrating participant feedback and concerns to improve community and individual level chemical exposure assessment reports.BMC public health · 2023Article
- A process for creating data report-back tools to improve equity in environmental health.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022Article
- Returning Individual Tap Water Testing Results to Research Study Participants after a Wildfire Disaster.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- MCR: Open-Source Software to Automate Compilation of Health Study Report-Back.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Experts recommend reporting environmental exposure results back to research participants and communities, yet environmental health researchers need further guidance to improve the practice of reporting back. We present the results of a workshop developed to identify pertinent issues and areas for action in reporting back environmental health research results. Thirty-five attendees participated, brainstorming responses to the prompt: "What are some specific issues that are relevant to reporting back research results to individuals or the larger community?", and then grouping responses by similarity and rating their importance. Based on a combined theoretical foundation of grounded theory and qualitative content analysis, we used concept mapping to develop a collective understanding of the issues. Visual maps of the participants' responses were created using nonmetric multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. The resulting concept map provided a spatial depiction of five issue areas: Effective Communication Strategies, Community Knowledge and Concerns, Uncertainty, Empowering Action, and Institutional Review and Oversight (listed from highest to lowest rating). Through these efforts, we disentangled the complex issues affecting how and whether environmental health research results are reported back to participants and communities, by identifying five distinct themes to guide recommendations and action. Engaging community partners in the process of reporting back emerged as a unifying global theme, which could improve how researchers report back research results by understanding community context to develop effective communication methods and address uncertainty, the ability to act, and institutional concerns about beneficence and justice.
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.