Community reporting of ambient air polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations near a Superfund site

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.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Tomsho

Schollaert

Aguilar

et al. 2019

“…The lower priority given to the category, coupled with the diverse audiences identified, suggests that our participants do not yet see reporting back as an effective, or perhaps appropriate, method to enable action in the communities with whom they engage. Instead, the workshop participants may view report-back primarily as a tool for enhancing community knowledge, sharing data, and clarifying the scientific process, as shown in the literature more broadly [44,45].…”

Section: Empowering Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Issues and Priorities in Reporting Back Environmental Health Data

Lebow-Skelley

Yelton

Janssen

et al. 2020

Experts recommend reporting environmental exposure results back to research participants and communities, yet environmental health researchers need further guidance to improve the practice of reporting back. We present the results of a workshop developed to identify pertinent issues and areas for action in reporting back environmental health research results. Thirty-five attendees participated, brainstorming responses to the prompt: “What are some specific issues that are relevant to reporting back research results to individuals or the larger community?”, and then grouping responses by similarity and rating their importance. Based on a combined theoretical foundation of grounded theory and qualitative content analysis, we used concept mapping to develop a collective understanding of the issues. Visual maps of the participants’ responses were created using nonmetric multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. The resulting concept map provided a spatial depiction of five issue areas: Effective Communication Strategies, Community Knowledge and Concerns, Uncertainty, Empowering Action, and Institutional Review and Oversight (listed from highest to lowest rating). Through these efforts, we disentangled the complex issues affecting how and whether environmental health research results are reported back to participants and communities, by identifying five distinct themes to guide recommendations and action. Engaging community partners in the process of reporting back emerged as a unifying global theme, which could improve how researchers report back research results by understanding community context to develop effective communication methods and address uncertainty, the ability to act, and institutional concerns about beneficence and justice.

“…There is extensive prior research on best practices for communicating personal research results related to environmental contaminants [ 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Those studies, however, often included a time-consuming community engagement process to tailor and test messages and materials, and those studies were not conducted in the immediate aftermath of an environmental disaster.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Returning Individual Tap Water Testing Results to Research Study Participants after a Wildfire Disaster

Behren

Wong

Morales

et al. 2022

After the devastating wildfire that destroyed most of the town of Paradise, California in 2018, volatile organic compounds were found in water distribution pipes. Approximately 11 months after the fire, we collected tap water samples from 136 homes that were still standing and tested for over 100 chemicals. Each participant received a customized report showing the laboratory findings from their sample. Our goal was to communicate individual water results and chemical information rapidly in a way that was understandable, scientifically accurate, and useful to participants. On the basis of this process, we developed a framework to illustrate considerations and priorities that draw from best practices of previous environmental results return research and crisis communication, while also addressing challenges specific to the disaster context. We also conducted a follow-up survey on participants’ perceptions of the results return process. In general, participants found the results return communications to be understandable, and they felt less worried about their drinking water quality after receiving the information. Over one-third of the participants reported taking some kind of action around their water usage habits after receiving their results. Communication with participants is a critical element of environmental disaster research, and it is important to have a strategy to communicate results that achieves the goals of timeliness, clarity, and scientific accuracy, ultimately empowering people toward actions that can reduce exposure.