Reporting results of human biomonitoring of environmental chemicals to study participants: a comparison of approaches followed in two Canadian studies

Abstract

Biomonitoring is used increasingly as an indicator and quantitative measure of exposure; however, there is a large gap in interpreting and communicating biomonitoring results to study participants. Two separate, national biomonitoring initiatives are under way in Canada; the household recruitment-based Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) and the clinic recruitment-based Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) Study. The CHMS provides participants with the option to receive all their results, but this option is not provided to MIREC participants. The approach to reporting results to participants depends on the availability of reference ranges and guidelines for which tissue concentrations may be interpreted as being elevated or associated with increased health risks, how participants are recruited, unique vulnerabilities of the population, legislation governing access to personal information, and decisions of research ethics committees. It is the researchers' responsibility to present the best case for their approach and, once the decision has been made, to inform participants about access to their results through the consent process.

Communication in a Human biomonitoring study: Focus group work, public engagement and lessons learnt in 17 European countries

“…some of the phthalate metabolites) no guidelines were available. Many others have recommended or taken this approach and provided the results first to the study individuals, then announcing the aggregate results nationally and to the broader scientific community (Brody et al, 2014;Emmett et al, 2009;Haines et al, 2011;NRC, 2006;Schoeters et al, 2012).…”

“…The Canadian clinic-recruitment based 'Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals' study (Haines et al, 2011) and national HBM studies in Portugal (Reis et al, 2008) have used this approach in which just the aggregate results are provided or individual results are given but only when health-based guidance values and interventions are available (Morello-Frosch et al, 2009). Other studies have moved towards a more open approach providing both individual and aggregate levels results, even if there are no clear health guidelines.…”

“…Other studies have moved towards a more open approach providing both individual and aggregate levels results, even if there are no clear health guidelines. Examples include the household recruitmentbased Canadian Health Measures Survey (Haines et al, 2011), the Flemish HBM program and the German Environmental Survey (Schulz et al, 2007).…”

STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology: Molecular Epidemiology STROBE-ME. An extension of the STROBE statement

“…Communication of results of molecular epidemiology studies is a still underdeveloped field. This paper refers only to scientific communication of study results and does not address the ethical problem of communicating results to single individuals (see21 22). …”

Determinação de valores de referência para chumbo, cádmio, mercúrio e níquel em sangue de crianças e adultos da cidade de São Paulo

“…Parte da pesquisa de biomonitorização avaliou diferentes substâncias químicas e seus metabólitos, incluindo metais, agrotóxicos, e bisfenol A no sangue e na urina da população. A média geométrica foi utilizada como valor de referência para comparação com outros estudos (Haines et al, 2011;Murray, 2012).…”