ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2025
A Qualitative Study of the Ethics of Community Scientists' Role in Environmental Health Research from the Perspective of Community Scientists and Institutional Review Board Staff.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCommunity engagement in research, including community scientists' (CSs) participation in environmental exposure assessments, promotes the bidirectional flow of information between communities and researchers and improves the development of interventions to reduce environmental health inequities. Nonetheless, institutional review boards (IRBs) with limited experience with CS research tend to struggle when reviewing protocols given CS participants' dual role as research participants and co-creators of data.
methodsWe collected focus group data from 35 Latina housecleaners eliciting their bioethical reflections on their experience as CSs before and after participation in the collection of data about their exposures to chemical compounds in cleaning products. We shared findings from CS participants and collected impressions and challenges from IRB staff from five New York City biomedical research institutions. We used a modified approach to conventional content analysis to guide data analysis and combined deductive and inductive approaches to generate codes.
resultsThe CS participants emphasized their shared responsibility in the research process and bidirectional learning with the research team, which they saw as educating and empowering themselves and their broader community to create safer cleaning practices to improve the community's health and wellbeing. CS participants embraced the importance of sound science by their recognition that their community relied on the quality and accuracy of their work as CSs. Perspectives from IRB staff similarly recognized the value of participant engagement but emphasized the importance of disentangling CS activities as research participants from activities as research team members to better determine the appropriate mechanisms and authorities for assuring ethical protections. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that existing bioethical principles of beneficence, respect for persons, and justice, when interpreted by participants as inclusive of protections and benefits for both the CSs and their community's collective good, reflect the bioethical values of our CS participants. However, better guidance and training is needed for researchers, IRBs, and community collaborators to apply these values and respect and protect the full range of roles for community members participating in research. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15824.
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.