Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37008611›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2023

Participant engagement to develop report-back materials for personal air monitoring.

Patrick H Ryan, Chris Wolfe, Allison Parsons, Cole Brokamp, Ashley Turner, Erin Haynes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Co-Designing a School-Based Citizen Science Protocol to Investigate Tire-Related Pollutants in Barcelona.Journal of urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Patrick H RyanDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8662-9122
Chris WolfeDivision of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Allison ParsonsDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Cole BrokampDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati, College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Ashley TurnerDivision of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Erin HaynesDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Kentucky, College of Public Health, Lexington, KY, USA.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · USUniversity of Kentucky · US

Funding

Molecular Epidemiology in Children's Environmental Health Training Program (MECEH)T32ES010957 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI Kelly J Brunst · 2001 to 2026
$11.1M
Developing and Evaluating Novel Strategies for Reporting Back Individual Results of Personal Air MonitorsR21ES030092 · NIEHS · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI RYAN, PATRICK H · 2019 to 2020
$447k
NIEHS NIH HHS R21 ES030092NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES010957
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Studies that measure environmental exposures in biological samples frequently provide participants their results. In contrast, studies using personal air monitors do not typically provide participants their monitoring results. The objective of this study was to engage adolescents who completed personal air sampling and their caregivers to develop understandable and actionable report-back documents containing the results of their personal air sampling. Methods: Adolescents and their caregivers who previously completed personal air sampling participated in focus groups to guide the development of report-back materials. We conducted thematic analyses of focus group data to guide the design of the report-back document and convened experts in community engagement, reporting study results, and human subjects research to provide feedback. Final revisions to the report-back document were made based on follow-up focus group feedback. Results: Focus groups identified critical components of an air-monitoring report-back document to include an overview of the pollutant being measured, a comparison of individual personal sampling data to the overall study population, a guide to interpreting results, visualization of individual data, and additional information on pollution sources, health risks, and exposure reduction strategies. Participants also indicated their desire to receive study results in an electronic and interactive format. The final report-back document was electronic and included background information, participants' results presented using interactive maps and figures, and additional material regarding pollution sources. Conclusion: Studies using personal air monitoring technology should provide research participants their results in an understandable and meaningful way to empower participants with increased knowledge to guide exposure reduction strategies.

Indexed as

communicationfocus groupParticipant engagementpersonal air monitoringreporting study findings to participants

Identifiers

PMID37008611
PMCPMC10052429
OpenAlexW4323043780

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.