Using environmental health dialogue in a Diné-centered approach for individualized results reporting in an environmental exposure study following the Gold King Mine Spill.

BACKGROUND: On August 5, 2015, the Gold King Mine Spill (GKMS) resulted in 3 million gallons of acid mine drainage spilling into the San Juan River impacting the Diné Bikeyah (traditional homelands of the Navajo people). The Gold King Mine Spill Diné Exposure Project was formed to understand the impacts of the GKMS on the Diné (Navajo). Reporting individualized household results in an exposure study is becoming more common; however, materials are often developed with limited community input with knowledge flowing in one direction - from researcher to participant. In this study we examined the development, dissemination, and evaluation of individualized results materials. METHODS: In August 2016, Navajo Nation Community Health Representatives (Navajo CHRs) sampled household water, dust, and soil, and resident blood and urine for lead and arsenic, respectively. From May-July 2017, iterative dialogue with a wide range of community partners and a community focus groups guided the development of a culturally-based dissemination process. In August 2017, Navajo CHRs reported individualized results and they surveyed the participants on the report-back process at that time. RESULTS: All of the 63 Diné adults (100%) who participated in the exposure study received their results by a CHR in person and 42 (67%) completed an evaluation. Most of those participants (83%) were satisfied with the result packets. Respondents ranked the individual and overall household results as the most important information they received (69% and 57%, respectively), while information on metals exposures and their health effects were the least helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Our project illustrates how a model of environmental health dialogue, defined by iterative, multidirectional communication among Indigenous community members, trusted Indigenous leaders, Indigenous researchers, non-Indigenous researchers, can improve reporting individualized study results. Findings can inform future research to encourage multi-directional environmental health dialogue to craft more culturally responsive and effective dissemination and communication materials.

Integrating participant feedback and concerns to improve community and individual level chemical exposure assessment reports.

BACKGROUND: As exposure assessment has shifted towards community-engaged research there has been an increasing trend towards reporting results to participants. Reports aim to increase environmental health literacy, but this can be challenging due to the many unknowns regarding chemical exposure and human health effects. This includes when reports encompass a wide-range of chemicals, limited reference or health standards exist for those chemicals, and/or incompatibility of data generated from exposure assessment tools with published reference values (e.g., comparing a wristband concentration to an oral reference dose). METHODS: Houston Hurricane Harvey Health (Houston-3H) participants wore silicone wristbands that were analyzed for 1,530 organic compounds at two time-points surrounding Hurricane Harvey. Three focus groups were conducted in separate neighborhoods in the Houston metropolitan area to evaluate response to prototype community and individual level report-backs. Participants (n = 31) evaluated prototype drafts using Likert scales and discussion prompts. Focus groups were audio-recorded, and transcripts were analyzed using a qualitative data analysis program for common themes, and quantitative data (ranking, Likert scales) were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Four main themes emerged from analysis of the transcripts: (1) views on the report layout; (2) expression of concern over how chemicals might impact their individual or community health; (3) participants emotional response towards the researchers; and (4) participants ability to comprehend and evaluate environmental health information. Evaluation of the report and key concerns differed across the three focus groups. However, there was agreement amongst the focus groups about the desire to obtain personal exposure results despite the uncertainty of what the participant results meant. CONCLUSIONS: The report-back of research results (RBRR) for community and individual level exposure assessment data should keep the following key principles in mind: materials should be accessible (language level, data visualization options, graph literacy), identify known information vs unknown (e.g., provide context for what exposure assessment data means, acknowledge lack of current health standards or guidelines), recognize and respect community knowledge and history, and set participant expectations for what they can expect from the report.