ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2026
Experiences of clinicians engaged in report-back of individual chemical exposures in two pregnancy cohorts.
Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Reporting individualized chemical exposure results increases environmental health literacy, empowers study participants to reduce harmful exposures, and supports researchers in identifying and addressing exposure sources. Despite recommendations to increase clinicians’ roles in environmental health promotion, clinician-involvement in environmental health report-back remains limited. This study investigates clinician-facilitated environmental health report-back as a promising approach to results dissemination. We partnered with two pregnancy cohort studies to implement report-back of individual chemical results delivered by clinicians. Nine clinicians provided individualized exposure results to 87 participants across the two cohort studies. Following report-back sessions, we conducted semi-structured interviews to assess clinician experiences, perceived facilitators and barriers to report-back, and shifts in environmental health knowledge. Clinician-facilitated report-back was described as a rewarding process that enhanced clinicians’ ability to not only guide study participants through their individual chemical results but also expand their ability to provide environmental health information to other patients. Clinicians reported increased environmental health knowledge and adoption of personal exposure reduction habits. Clinicians from both cohorts discussed the challenge of communicating scientific uncertainty surrounding specific chemical exposures and related health outcomes. To address this, clinicians relied on structured training and materials developed by the study team to provide practical and actionable exposure reduction recommendations. Expanding training opportunities, embedding environmental health information into medical curricula and clinical practice, and developing guidance for clinician participation could advance communication of environmental exposure results.
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.