Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33775967›Full record

ArticleProgress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action2021

Reporting Results of a Community-Based In-Home Exposure Monitoring Study: Developing Methods and Materials.

Claire Schollaert, Marty Alvarez, Sara Gillooly, Kathryn Tomsho, Roseann Bongiovanni, Stacey Chacker, Temana Aguilar, Jose Vallarino, Gary Adamkiewicz, Madeleine K Scammell

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Progress in community health partnerships : research, education, and action, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A process for creating data report-back tools to improve equity in environmental health.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2022
    Article
  5. MCR: Open-Source Software to Automate Compilation of Health Study Report-Back.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  6. 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

10 authors.

Claire Schollaert
Marty Alvarez
Sara Gillooly
Kathryn Tomsho
Roseann Bongiovanni
Stacey Chacker
Temana Aguilar
Jose Vallarino
Gary Adamkiewicz
Madeleine K Scammell

Funding

Project 3: Cumulative Risk and Geospatial Health Disparities Related to Chemical and Non-Chemical Stressor ExposuresP50MD010428 · NIMHD · HARVARD SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH · PI LADEN, FRANCINE, LEVY, JONATHAN I · 2015 to 2020
$4.0M
EPA R836156NIMHD NIH HHS P50 MD010428
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReporting exposure results to study participants provides information that can ideally be used to decrease harmful exposures, improve health, and prevent disease. In reality, we often do not fully understand how an environmental exposure contributes to disease. This is the case when reporting back indoor air exposures in the absence of regulations.

objectivesWe reported nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) results back to individual participants of an in-home study in Chelsea, Massachusetts. We aimed to provide participants with information on the pollutant concentrations in their homes and in their community and to suggest strategies for decreasing in-home exposures. Our goals were to improve environmental health literacy and empower residents to take action on air quality issues in their community. The main objective of this paper is to describe how we developed our report back process and materials.

methodsOur team of academic and community partners developed a two-part report back process. The first part included a mailing tailored to every home containing daily indoor and outdoor NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations, community averages, outdoor standards and guidelines, and results from other indoor air quality studies for comparison. The second part included a community meeting for participants.

conclusionsOur report back process and materials benefitted from the contributions of multiple diverse stakeholders. We recommend at least a two-part strategy for facilitating communication within the community and between community and academic researchers. The materials and methods can be easily adapted by other researchers to report back exposure results in other community-specific contexts.

Indexed as

Air PollutantsAir PollutionAir Pollution, IndoorCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringHumansParticulate MatterAir PollutantsParticulate Matter

Identifiers

PMID33775967
PMCPMC12881996
OpenAlexW3140892718

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.