IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v8y2011i3p830-841d11660.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjects Agree to Participate in Environmental Health Studies without Fully Comprehending the Associated Risk

Author

Listed:
  • Robin Lee

    (Division of Health Studies, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F-57, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA)

  • Samantha Lampert

    (Division of Health Studies, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F-57, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA)

  • Lynn Wilder

    (Division of Health Studies, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F-57, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA)

  • Anne L. Sowell

    (Division of Health Studies, U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Highway NE, MS F-57, Atlanta, GA 30341, USA)

Abstract

Recent advances in environmental health research have greatly improved our ability to measure and quantify how individuals are exposed. These advances, however, bring bioethical uncertainties and potential risks that individuals should be aware of before consenting to participate. This study assessed how well participants from two environmental health studies comprehended consent form material. After signing the consent form, participants were asked to complete a comprehension assessment tool. The tool measured whether participants could recognize or recall six elements of the consent form they had just reviewed. Additional data were collected to look for differences in comprehension by gender, age, race, and the time spent reading the original consent form. Seventy-three participants completed a comprehension assessment tool. Scores ranged from 1.91 to 6.00 (mean = 4.66); only three people had perfect comprehension scores. Among the least comprehended material were questions on study-related risks. Overall, 53% of participants were not aware of two or more study-related risks. As environmental public health studies pose uncertainties and potential risks, researchers need to do more to assess participants’ understanding before assuming that individuals have given their ‘informed’ consent.

Suggested Citation

  • Robin Lee & Samantha Lampert & Lynn Wilder & Anne L. Sowell, 2011. "Subjects Agree to Participate in Environmental Health Studies without Fully Comprehending the Associated Risk," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-12, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:8:y:2011:i:3:p:830-841:d:11660
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/3/830/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/3/830/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ruth Faden & Tom Beauchamp, 1980. "Decision-making and informed consent: A study of the impact of disclosed information," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 313-336, January.
    2. Brody, J.G. & Morello-Frosch, R. & Brown, P. & Rudel, R.A. & Altman, R.G. & Frye, M. & Osimo, C.A. & Pérez, C. & Seryak, L.M., 2007. ""Is it safe?": New ethics for reporting personal exposures to environmental chemicals," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(9), pages 1547-1554.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diana Rohlman & Jamie Donatuto & Myk Heidt & Michael Barton & Larry Campbell & Kim A. Anderson & Molly L. Kile, 2019. "A Case Study Describing a Community-Engaged Approach for Evaluating Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure in a Native American Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Monica D. Ramirez-Andreotta & Julia Green Brody & Nathan Lothrop & Miranda Loh & Paloma I. Beamer & Phil Brown, 2016. "Improving Environmental Health Literacy and Justice through Environmental Exposure Results Communication," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-27, July.
    3. Johanna Amalia Robinson & Rok Novak & Tjaša Kanduč & Thomas Maggos & Demetra Pardali & Asimina Stamatelopoulou & Dikaia Saraga & Danielle Vienneau & Benjamin Flückiger & Ondřej Mikeš & Céline Degrende, 2021. "User-Centred Design of a Final Results Report for Participants in Multi-Sensor Personal Air Pollution Exposure Monitoring Campaigns," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Erin Lebow-Skelley & Sarah Yelton & Brandi Janssen & Esther Erdei & Melanie A. Pearson, 2020. "Identifying Issues and Priorities in Reporting Back Environmental Health Data," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Arthur Moses & Jean E. T. McLain & Aminata Kilungo & Robert A. Root & Leif Abrell & Sanlyn Buxner & Flor Sandoval & Theresa Foley & Miriam Jones & Mónica D. Ramírez-Andreotta, 2022. "Minding the gap: socio-demographic factors linked to the perception of environmental pollution, water harvesting infrastructure, and gardening characteristics," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(3), pages 594-610, September.
    6. Verheggen, Frank W. S. M. & van Wijmen, Frans C. B., 1996. "Informed consent in clinical trials," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 131-153, May.
    7. Julie Von Behren & Michelle Wong & Daniela Morales & Peggy Reynolds & Paul B. English & Gina Solomon, 2022. "Returning Individual Tap Water Testing Results to Research Study Participants after a Wildfire Disaster," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(2), pages 1-13, January.
    8. Jose Ramon Saura & Pedro Palos-Sanchez & Miguel Angel Rios Martin, 2018. "Attitudes Expressed in Online Comments about Environmental Factors in the Tourism Sector: An Exploratory Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-20, March.
    9. Erin Polka & Ellen Childs & Alexa Friedman & Kathryn S. Tomsho & Birgit Claus Henn & Madeleine K. Scammell & Chad W. Milando, 2021. "MCR: Open-Source Software to Automate Compilation of Health Study Report-Back," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-12, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:8:y:2011:i:3:p:830-841:d:11660. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.