Background: Although there is increasing interest in reporting results of environmental research efforts back to participants, evidence-based tools have not yet been applied to developed materials to ensure their accessibility in terms of literacy, numeracy, and data visualization demand. Additionally, there is not yet guidance as to how to formally assess the created materials to assure a match with the intended audience.Methods: Relying on formative qualitative research with participants of an indoor air quality study in Dorchester, Massachusetts, we identified means of enhancing accessibility of indoor air quality data report-back materials for participants. Participants (n = 20) engaged in semi-structured interviews in which they described challenges they encountered with scientific and medical materials and outlined written and verbal communication techniques that would help facilitate engagement with and accessibility of environmental health report-back materials. We coupled these insights from participants with best practice guidelines for written materials by operationalizing health literacy tools to produce accessible audience-informed data report-back materials.Results: The resulting data report-back materials had a 7th -grade reading level, and between a 4th -8th grade level of overall document complexity. The numeracy skills required to engage with the material were of the lowest demand, and we incorporated best practices for risk communication and facilitating understanding and actionability of the materials. Use of a rigorous assessment tool provides evidence of accessibility and appropriateness of the material for the audience.Conclusions: We outline a process for developing and evaluating environmental health data reports that are tailored to inspire risk-reduction actions, and are demonstrably accessible in terms of their literacy, numeracy, and data visualization demand. Adapting health literacy tools to create and evaluate environmental data report-back materials is a novel and evidence-based means of ensuring their accessibility.

In this manuscript, we describe the process of establishing partnerships for community-based environmental exposure research, the tools and methods implemented for data report-back to community members, and the results of evaluations of these efforts. Data discovery and report-back materials developed by Statistics for Action (SFA) were employed as the framework to communicate the environmental data to community members and workshops. These data communication and research translation efforts are described in detail and evaluated for effectiveness based on feedback provided from community members who attended the workshops. Overall, the methods were mostly effective for the intended data communication.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists provided updated guidance in 2021, recommending that reproductive health professionals should include discussion of environmental exposures with their patients. However, environmental health is seldom included in medical training, with endocrine-disrupting chemicals, such as phthalates—linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes—being among the least discussed. We developed a one-hour virtual educational intervention to train reproductive health professionals on the routes of phthalate exposure, potential associated health impacts, and suggestions on how to discuss exposure reduction with patients. The intervention was designed to include perspectives from patients, scientists, and clinicians. Using a pre/post/post design, we evaluated the impact of the intervention on reproductive health professionals’ phthalate-related reproductive health literacy via a validated environmental health literacy (EHL) scale, their confidence in discussing phthalates, and the frequency of discussions about phthalates with patients. All materials, including the study questionnaires and intervention materials, were administered virtually to reproductive health professionals (n = 203) currently seeing patients working in the United States. After completing the intervention, reproductive health professionals’ average EHL increased (pre-course: 22.3, post-course: 23.7, 2 months post-course: 24.0), as did their confidence in discussing phthalates with their patients (pre-course: 1% (2/203) reported being quite confident, post-course: 64% (131/203) reported being quite confident, and 2 months post course: 86% (174/203) reported being quite confident). Additionally, the reported frequency of discussions about phthalates with patients rose substantially (pre-course: 0% (0/203) reported usually discussing phthalates with patients, and 2 months post-course: 86% (175/203) reported usually discussing phthalates with patients): In line with the recommendations of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, this online phthalate educational intervention tool increased EHL among reproductive health professionals and shifted clinical care to include discussion about phthalates, a reproductive toxicant.

Background: Perinatal exposure to phthalates is associated with adverse health impacts for parents and children. The field of environmental health literacy seeks to measure how environmental health information is conceptualized and used to inform behaviors. We assessed whether scores on the validated Phthalate Environmental Reproductive Health Literacy (PERHL) scale were associated with biomarkers of phthalate exposure. Methods: 42 members of the Environmental Reproductive and Glucose Outcomes (ERGO) cohort completed the PERHL scale and provided spot urine samples. Phthalate summary measures for model outcomes were created by calculating molar sums of specific gravity-corrected metabolite concentrations representing exposure to parent phthalate, Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), personal care product (PCP)-associated phthalates, and parent butyl-phthalates. Linear regression models were used to estimate the associations of the PERHL scale scores with phthalate summary measures, controlling for educational attainment (college degree or higher vs. no college degree), age (years), and race and ethnicity (non-Hispanic White vs. non-White). Results: Higher scores on the PERHL Scale and subscales were generally associated with lower ΣDEHP, Σbutyl, and ΣPCP metabolite concentrations. A one-point increase in the ‘Protective Behavior/Risk Control’ subscale score was significantly associated with a −30.3% (95% CI: −50.1, −2.6) decrease in ΣDEHP, and a −30.6% (95% CI: −51.5, −0.63) decrease in Σbutyl metabolite concentrations.

The original version of this article unfortunately contains a mistake. The correct Author names should be Staci M. Rubin and Keri C. Hornbuckle.