Reporting Results of a Community-Based In-Home Exposure Monitoring Study: Developing Methods and Materials.

BACKGROUND: Reporting exposure results to study participants provides information that can ideally be used to decrease harmful exposures, improve health, and prevent disease. In reality, we often do not fully understand how an environmental exposure contributes to disease. This is the case when reporting back indoor air exposures in the absence of regulations. OBJECTIVES: We reported nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) results back to individual participants of an in-home study in Chelsea, Massachusetts. We aimed to provide participants with information on the pollutant concentrations in their homes and in their community and to suggest strategies for decreasing in-home exposures. Our goals were to improve environmental health literacy and empower residents to take action on air quality issues in their community. The main objective of this paper is to describe how we developed our report back process and materials. METHODS: Our team of academic and community partners developed a two-part report back process. The first part included a mailing tailored to every home containing daily indoor and outdoor NO2 and PM2.5 concentrations, community averages, outdoor standards and guidelines, and results from other indoor air quality studies for comparison. The second part included a community meeting for participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our report back process and materials benefitted from the contributions of multiple diverse stakeholders. We recommend at least a two-part strategy for facilitating communication within the community and between community and academic researchers. The materials and methods can be easily adapted by other researchers to report back exposure results in other community-specific contexts.

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

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.

Tribal IRBs: A Framework for Understanding Research Oversight in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities.

Tribal Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and other entities that oversee research for American Indians and Alaska Natives are important and unique. They reflect and respond to community needs, changes in research, and revisions to research policy. We provide a framework to capture this dynamism by building on existing work and offering a way to describe the scope of entities that oversee tribal research. As federal research regulations are revised, and policies are developed in response to a rapidly advancing research landscape, it is critical that policy makers, IRB professionals, researchers, and tribal communities have clarity regarding the Tribal IRB.