Participant perspectives related to individual chemical exposure report-back approaches in three environmental health studies

Julia Varshavsky; Marley Zalay; Jessica Trowbridge; Tracey Woodruff; Asa Bradman; Brenda Eskenazi; Kim G Harley; Katherine Kogut; Duyen Kauffman; Stephanie Jarmul; Phil Brown; Julia Green Brody; Rachel Morello-Frosch

doi:10.1016/j.envres.2024.120746

Participant perspectives related to individual chemical exposure report-back approaches in three environmental health studies

Environ Res. 2025 Jan 1:120746. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.120746. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Department of Public Health and Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA. Electronic address: [email protected].
² School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
³ Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.
⁴ School of Social Sciences, University of California, Merced, Merced, CA.
⁵ California Department of Public Health, Richmond, CA.
⁶ Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, CA.
⁷ Department of Public Health and Health Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, MA; Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Northeastern University, Boston, MA.
⁸ Silent Spring Institute, Newton, MA.
⁹ School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA; Department of Environmental Science Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. Electronic address: [email protected].

PMID: 39753157
DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2024.120746

Abstract

Returning results to participants of environmental exposure studies has become more common in recent years. Despite evidence of benefits for study participants, there are challenges in communicating results to people with limited resources or capacity to mitigate chemical exposures. We interviewed N=54 participants and compared exposure report-back conducted in 2010-2013 across three susceptible study populations: 1) low-income pregnant individuals in the Chemicals in Our Bodies (CIOB) study; 2) the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) cohort; and 3) early childhood educators (ECE). Report-back differed between the cross-sectional studies (CIOB and ECE), which offered an opportunity to consult with research staff by phone or email, and the prospective cohort study (CHAMACOS), which allowed for participants to discuss individual and group-level results directly with researchers at a community meeting. Participants in all three studies were motivated to participate by children's health and wanted more information about health implications and exposure reduction strategies, with cost and limited resources cited as common barriers to change. We observed overall positive experiences with report-back across studies, with improved environmental health literacy and constructive learning experiences that were most evident in CHAMACOS. While many noted individual actions they had made or intended to make to reduce exposures, CHAMACOS participants were more likely to mention systems-level changes achieved through actions such as contacting decision-makers and raising community awareness. Our findings suggest that researchers may have a unique opportunity to support environmental health literacy and informed action at both the individual and community or policy levels through long-term study engagement, various forms of direct consultation with study participants, and thoughtful report-back methods that leverage existing tools and are sensitive to barriers faced by specific study populations. This work informs best practices for communicating chemical exposure results among sensitive or highly exposed communities.