A Mixed Methods Evaluation of Sharing Air Pollution Results with Study Participants via Report-Back Communication

Abstract

We implemented a concurrent triangulation mixed-methods evaluation of an air pollution data report-back to study participants in Chelsea, Massachusetts. We aimed to determine whether the report-back was effective in the following three ways: engagement, understandability, and actionability for the participants. We also evaluated participants’ valuation of the report-back information and process. The evaluation involved both qualitative components, such as ethnographic observation, and quantitative components, such as closed-ended questionnaires and demographic data. The participants who engaged in the report-back process were significantly different from those who did not engage both in terms of their demographics, and in their indoor air pollutant concentrations. Participant understanding generally corresponded with the intended meaning of the research team, suggesting successful data communication. Additionally, many of the participants reported that they were inspired to take action in order to reduce their indoor air pollutant exposure as a result of the report-back process and information provided. These results identify areas of improvement for engagement, particularly regarding populations that may have higher exposures. This work outlines a framework with which to contextualize and evaluate the success of engagement with report-back efforts. Such evaluations can allow research teams to assess whether they are providing information that is equitably useful and actionable for all participants.

Assessment of Multipollutant Exposures During Pregnancy Using Silicone Wristbands

“…From a practical perspective, we observed high participation rates with the wristbands in our cohort, and study coordinators provided anecdotal reports indicating that many participants were enthusiastic to wear the wristbands and curious about the data generated by them. However, there is considerable difficulty in risk communication regarding such a broad array of chemicals, including the communication of potential toxicity, likely sources of exposure, and both absolute and relative exposure levels ( 61 , 62 ). Further, reference values indicating “safe” levels of exposures are not available for the wristband data as they are for traditional biomarker measures of many, though certainly not all, chemicals.…”

Outcomes from Returning Individual versus Only Study-Wide Biomonitoring Results in an Environmental Exposure Study Using the Digital Exposure Report-Back Interface (DERBI)

“…Other strengths of our study include the large number of participants and strong response rate in our structured, quantitative survey in comparison with earlier studies ( Giannini et al. 2018 ; Tomsho et al. 2019 ), and the representation of Black and non-Black participants across a range of education levels.…”

“…2018 ; Perovich et al. 2018 ; Tomsho et al. 2019 ), although research is still needed to keep improving methods to return results and advance environmental health literacy, including the ability to take health-protective actions.…”

MCR: Open-Source Software to Automate Compilation of Health Study Report-Back

“…Report-back for HOME consisted of general and individualized information which characterized common routes of exposure to indoor air contaminants, as well as numerical, text, and graphical representations of participants’ in-home air concentrations of these contaminants. The study team completed the report-back for Chelsea without MCR in summer 2018, manually creating individualized reports for each participant [ 26 , 27 ]. For the report-back in Dorchester (winter 2020), the study team used MCR to generate reports using numerical, text, and graphical results prepared in R and Microsoft Excel.…”