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}
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.