ArticleEnvironmental hazards (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024
Multi-directional communication between decision makers and environmental health researchers: a qualitative inquiry.
Article in Environmental hazards (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Report-back of Research Results Strategies for Personal Chemical Exposure Data.Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Article
- Training Community-Academic Teams to Use Low-Cost Air Monitors: A Mixed Method Evaluation of the RISE Communities Program.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
It has been three decades since key leaders gathered to pave a path toward healthier and more just environments and recommendations were made to improve communication between scientists and community stakeholders who can influence decision making. Since that time, community engaged research has flourished while building the capacity of researchers to engage in the work of making change to those environments has lagged. The purpose of this study was the development of guidelines to inform interactions between researchers and decision makers and influencers who participate in the policy change process. This community engaged, pragmatic and iterative inquiry includes insight from a review of existing resources and key informant interviews. Resulting guidelines were piloted, and formative evaluation by community stakeholders informed and resulted in refinement to the guidelines. Strategies for communicating and disseminating scientific evidence are presented as well as tactics that sensitise researchers to the nuances of policy makers' realities so they may serve as a resource for dealing with complex information and decisions. We provide tactics and archived resources in an on-line toolkit that we have cultivated over time to foster effective communication between scientists and those who have a stake in ensuring that decisions are evidence informed.
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.