纽约市华盛顿高地社区多环芳香烃暴露结果回馈的发展与成果。

IF 2.3 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Environmental Health Insights Pub Date : 2024-07-24 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/11786302241262604
Kylie W Riley, Kimberly Burke, Holly Dixon, Darrell Holmes, Lehyla Calero, Michael Barton, Rachel L Miller, Lisa M Bramer, Katrina M Waters, Kim A Anderson, Julie Herbstman, Diana Rohlman
{"title":"纽约市华盛顿高地社区多环芳香烃暴露结果回馈的发展与成果。","authors":"Kylie W Riley, Kimberly Burke, Holly Dixon, Darrell Holmes, Lehyla Calero, Michael Barton, Rachel L Miller, Lisa M Bramer, Katrina M Waters, Kim A Anderson, Julie Herbstman, Diana Rohlman","doi":"10.1177/11786302241262604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Report-back of research results (RBRR) is becoming standard practice for environmental health research studies. RBRR is thought to increase environmental health literacy (EHL), although standardized measurements are limited. For this study, we developed a report back document on exposure to air pollutants, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, during pregnancy through community engaged research and evaluated whether the report increased EHL. We used focus groups and surveys to gather feedback on the report document from an initial group of study participants (Group 1, n = 22) and then sent the revised report to a larger number of participants (Group 2, n = 168). We conducted focus groups among participants in Group 1 and discussed their suggested changes to the report and how those changes could be implemented. Participants in focus groups demonstrated multiple levels of EHL. While participant engagement critically informed report development, a survey comparing feedback from Group 1 (initial report) and Group 2 (revised report) did not show a significant difference in the ease of reading the report or knowledge gained about air pollutants. We acknowledge that our approach was limited by a lack of EHL tools that assess knowledge and behavior change, and a reliance on quantitative methodologies. Future approaches that merge qualitative and quantitative methodologies to evaluate RBRR and methodologies for assessing RBRR materials and subsequent changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior, may be necessary.</p>","PeriodicalId":11827,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Health Insights","volume":"18 ","pages":"11786302241262604"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11271165/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development and Outcomes of Returning Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure Results in the Washington Heights, NYC Community.\",\"authors\":\"Kylie W Riley, Kimberly Burke, Holly Dixon, Darrell Holmes, Lehyla Calero, Michael Barton, Rachel L Miller, Lisa M Bramer, Katrina M Waters, Kim A Anderson, Julie Herbstman, Diana Rohlman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11786302241262604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Report-back of research results (RBRR) is becoming standard practice for environmental health research studies. RBRR is thought to increase environmental health literacy (EHL), although standardized measurements are limited. For this study, we developed a report back document on exposure to air pollutants, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, during pregnancy through community engaged research and evaluated whether the report increased EHL. We used focus groups and surveys to gather feedback on the report document from an initial group of study participants (Group 1, n = 22) and then sent the revised report to a larger number of participants (Group 2, n = 168). We conducted focus groups among participants in Group 1 and discussed their suggested changes to the report and how those changes could be implemented. Participants in focus groups demonstrated multiple levels of EHL. While participant engagement critically informed report development, a survey comparing feedback from Group 1 (initial report) and Group 2 (revised report) did not show a significant difference in the ease of reading the report or knowledge gained about air pollutants. We acknowledge that our approach was limited by a lack of EHL tools that assess knowledge and behavior change, and a reliance on quantitative methodologies. Future approaches that merge qualitative and quantitative methodologies to evaluate RBRR and methodologies for assessing RBRR materials and subsequent changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior, may be necessary.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11827,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Health Insights\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"11786302241262604\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11271165/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Health Insights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241262604\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Health Insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11786302241262604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究成果汇报 (RBRR) 已成为环境健康研究的标准做法。尽管标准化的测量方法有限,但 RBRR 被认为可以提高环境健康素养(EHL)。在本研究中,我们通过社区参与式研究编写了一份关于孕期接触空气污染物(多环芳香烃)的报告反馈文件,并评估了该报告是否提高了 EHL。我们通过焦点小组和调查的方式,收集了首批研究参与者(第 1 组,n = 22)对报告文件的反馈意见,然后将修订后的报告发给了更多参与者(第 2 组,n = 168)。我们在第 1 组参与者中开展了焦点小组讨论,并讨论了他们对报告的修改建议以及如何实施这些修改。焦点小组的参与者表现出了多层次的 EHL。虽然参与者的参与为报告的编写提供了重要信息,但一项调查比较了第 1 组(初始报告)和第 2 组(修订报告)的反馈意见,结果显示在报告的易读性或获得的空气污染物知识方面并无显著差异。我们承认,由于缺乏评估知识和行为变化的环境健康水平工具,以及对定量方法的依赖,我们的方法受到了限制。未来可能有必要采用定性和定量相结合的方法来评估《限制性商业登记/报告》,以及评估《限制性商业登记/报告》材料和随后的知识、态度和行为变化的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Development and Outcomes of Returning Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure Results in the Washington Heights, NYC Community.

Report-back of research results (RBRR) is becoming standard practice for environmental health research studies. RBRR is thought to increase environmental health literacy (EHL), although standardized measurements are limited. For this study, we developed a report back document on exposure to air pollutants, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, during pregnancy through community engaged research and evaluated whether the report increased EHL. We used focus groups and surveys to gather feedback on the report document from an initial group of study participants (Group 1, n = 22) and then sent the revised report to a larger number of participants (Group 2, n = 168). We conducted focus groups among participants in Group 1 and discussed their suggested changes to the report and how those changes could be implemented. Participants in focus groups demonstrated multiple levels of EHL. While participant engagement critically informed report development, a survey comparing feedback from Group 1 (initial report) and Group 2 (revised report) did not show a significant difference in the ease of reading the report or knowledge gained about air pollutants. We acknowledge that our approach was limited by a lack of EHL tools that assess knowledge and behavior change, and a reliance on quantitative methodologies. Future approaches that merge qualitative and quantitative methodologies to evaluate RBRR and methodologies for assessing RBRR materials and subsequent changes in knowledge, attitudes, and behavior, may be necessary.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Health Insights
Environmental Health Insights PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
22.20%
发文量
97
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信