ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2022
Official health communications are failing PFAS-contaminated communities.
Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and Threat Language in PFAS Messaging.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Article
- Investigating the quantitative toxicological relationship between PFAS alkyl fluorine structure and exposure levels leading to changes in blood-based clinical markers in rats.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A · 2025Article
- PFAS in Nigeria: Identifying data gaps that hinder assessments of ecotoxicological and human health impacts.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Association of Environmental Injustice and Cardiovascular Diseases and Risk Factors in the United States.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Article
- Let's talk about PFAS: Inconsistent public awareness about PFAS and its sources in the United States.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEnvironmental health agencies are critical sources of information for communities affected by chemical contamination. Impacted residents and their healthcare providers often turn to federal and state agency webpages, fact sheets, and other documents to weigh exposure risks and interventions. MAIN BODY: This commentary briefly reviews scientific evidence concerning per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for health outcomes that concern members of affected communities and that have compelling or substantial yet differing degree of scientific evidence. It then features official documents in their own language to illustrate communication gaps, as well as divergence from scientific evidence and from best health communication practice. We found official health communications mostly do not distinguish between the needs of heavily contaminated communities characterized by high body burdens and the larger population with ubiquitous but substantially smaller exposures. Most health communications do not distinguish levels of evidence for health outcomes and overemphasize uncertainty, dismissing legitimate reasons for concern in affected communities. Critically, few emphasize helpful approaches to interventions. We also provide examples that can be templates for improvement.
conclusionsImmediate action should be undertaken to review and improve official health communications intended to inform the public and health providers about the risks of PFAS exposure and guide community and medical decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.