Ohayon Jennifer Liss, Cousins Elicia, Brown Phil, Morello-Frosch Rachel, Brody Julia Green
Silent Spring Institute, 320 Nevada Street, Suite 302, 02460 Newton, MA, USA.
Department of Sociology and Anthropology and Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, 310INV, 02115 Boston, MA, USA.
Environ Res. 2017 Feb;153:140-149. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.12.003. Epub 2016 Dec 10.
As the number of personal exposure studies expands and trends favor greater openness and transparency in the health sciences, ethical issues arise around reporting back individual results for contaminants without clear health guidelines. Past research demonstrates that research participants want their results even when the health implications are not known. The experiences of researchers and institutional review boards (IRBs) in studies that have reported personal chemical exposures can provide insights about ethical and practical approaches while also revealing areas of continued uncertainty. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 researchers and nine IRB members from seven personal exposure studies across the United States to investigate their experiences and attitudes about the report-back process. Researchers reported multiple benefits of report-back, including increasing retention and recruitment, advancing environmental health literacy, empowering study participants to take actions to reduce exposures, encouraging shifts in government and industry practices, and helping researchers discover sources of exposure through participant consultation. Researchers also reported challenges, including maintaining ongoing contact with participants, adopting protocols for notification of high exposures to chemicals without health guidelines, developing meaningful report-back materials, and resource limitations. IRB members reported concern for potential harm to participants, such as anxiety about personal results and counterproductive behavior changes. In contrast, researchers who have conducted personal report-back in their studies said that participants did not appear overly alarmed and noted that worry can be a positive outcome to motivate action to reduce harmful exposures. While key concerns raised during the early days of report-back have been substantially resolved for scientists with report-back experience, areas of uncertainty remain. These include ethical tensions surrounding the responsibility of researchers to leverage study results and resources to assist participants in policy or community-level actions to reduce chemical exposures, and how to navigate report-back to vulnerable populations.
随着个人暴露研究数量的增加,且健康科学领域倾向于更大程度的开放性和透明度,在没有明确健康指南的情况下报告污染物的个体结果引发了伦理问题。过去的研究表明,即使健康影响尚不清楚,研究参与者也希望得到他们的结果。在报告个人化学暴露的研究中,研究人员和机构审查委员会(IRB)的经验可以为伦理和实际方法提供见解,同时也揭示出仍存在不确定性的领域。我们对来自美国七项个人暴露研究的17名研究人员和九名IRB成员进行了半结构化访谈,以调查他们对反馈过程的经验和态度。研究人员报告了反馈的多重益处,包括提高保留率和招募率、提升环境卫生素养、使研究参与者有能力采取行动减少暴露、促使政府和行业做法发生转变,以及通过与参与者协商帮助研究人员发现暴露源。研究人员也报告了面临的挑战,包括与参与者保持持续联系、采用在没有健康指南的情况下通知高化学暴露的方案、编写有意义的反馈材料以及资源限制。IRB成员报告了对参与者潜在伤害的担忧,比如对个人结果的焦虑以及适得其反的行为改变。相比之下,在其研究中进行过个人反馈的研究人员表示,参与者似乎并未过度惊慌,并指出担忧可能是促使采取行动减少有害暴露的积极结果。虽然对于有反馈经验的科学家来说,在反馈早期提出的关键问题已基本得到解决,但仍存在不确定性领域。这些问题包括围绕研究人员利用研究结果和资源协助参与者采取政策或社区层面行动以减少化学暴露的责任所产生的伦理紧张关系,以及如何对弱势群体进行反馈。