Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-12
Perceived Risks,Benefits,and Interest in Participating in Environmental Health Studies That Share Personal Exposure Data: A U.S. Survey of Prospective Participants
Little is known about the willingness of prospective study participants to share environmental health data. To fill this gap, we conducted a hypothetical vignette survey among 1,575 women who have volunteered to be contacted about breast cancer studies. Eighty-three percent were interested in participating in the environmental studies, with little difference whether data were restricted to the research team, shared with approved researchers, or publicly accessible. However, participants somewhat preferred controlled access for children’s data. Respondents were more interested in studies with environmental rather than biological samples and more interested when researchers would return personal results, a practice of increasing importance. They were more reluctant to share location or to participate if studies involved electronic medical records. Many expressed concerns about privacy, particularly security breaches, but reidentification risks were mentioned infrequently, indicating that this topic should be discussed during informed consent.
AdamkiewiczG.ZotaA. R.FabianM. P.ChahineT.JulienR.SpenglerJ. D.LevyJ. I. (2011). Moving environmental justice indoors: Understanding structural influences on residential exposure patterns in low-income communities. American Journal of Public Health, 101(Suppl. 1), S238–S245. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300119
AntommariaA. H. M.BrothersK. B.MyersJ. A.FeyginY. B.AufoxS. A.BrilliantM. H.. . . HolmI. A. (2018). Parents’ attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobanks: A multisite experimental survey. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 9, 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2018.1505783
5.
AssmannS. F.HosmerD. W.LemeshowS.MundtK. A. (1996). Confidence intervals for measures of interaction. Epidemiology, 7(3), 286–290.
6.
AtzmüllerC.SteinerP. M. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology, 6(3), 128–138.
7.
BalshawD. M.CollmanG. W.GrayK. A.ThompsonC. L. (2017). The children’s health exposure analysis resource: Enabling research into the environmental influences on children’s health outcomes. Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 29(3), 385–389. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOP.0000000000000491
BrodyJ. G.BrownP.Morello-FroschR. (2019). Returning chemical exposure results to individuals and communities. In FinnS.O’FallonL. R. (Eds.), Environmental health literacy (pp. 135–163). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94108-0_6
10.
BrodyJ. G.DunaganS. C.Morello-FroschR.BrownP.PattonS.RudelR. A. (2014). Reporting individual results for biomonitoring and environmental exposures: Lessons learned from environmental communication case studies. Environmental Health, 13, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-13-40
11.
BrownP.BrodyJ. G.Morello-FroschR.TovarJ.ZotaA. R.RudelR. A. (2012). Measuring the success of community science: The Northern California household exposure study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(3), 326–331. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1103734
12.
CarreraJ. S.BrownP.BrodyJ. G.Morello-FroschR. (2018). Research altruism as motivation for participation in community-centered environmental health research. Social Science & Medicine, 196, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.11.028
13.
CoombsK. C.ChewG. L.SchafferC.RyanP. H.BrokampC.GrinshpunS. A.. . . ReponenT. (2016). Indoor air quality in green-renovated vs. non-green low-income homes of children living in a temperate region of US (Ohio). Science of the Total Environment, 554–555, 178–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.02.136
DodsonR. E.UdeskyJ. O.ColtonM. D.McCauleyM.CamannD. E.YauA. Y.. . . RudelR. A. (2017). Chemical exposures in recently renovated low-income housing: Influence of building materials and occupant activities. Environment International, 109, 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.007
ErlichY.ShorT.Pe’erI.CarmiS. (2018). Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches. Science, 362, 690–694. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau4832
19.
GarrisonN. A.SatheN. A.AntommariaA. H.HolmI. A.SandersonS. C.SmithM. E.. . . ClaytonE. W. (2016). A systematic literature review of individuals’ perspectives on broad consent and data sharing in the united states. Genetics in Medicine, 18(7), 663–671. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2015.138
20.
GaskellG.GottweisH.StarkbaumJ.GerberM. M.BroerseJ.GottweisU.. . . SoulierA. (2013). Publics and biobanks: Pan-European diversity and the challenge of responsible innovation. European Journal of Human Genetics, 21(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2012.104
21.
GohoS. A. (2016). The legal implications of report back in household exposure studies. Environmental Health Perspectives, 124(11), 1662–1670. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP187
22.
JamalL.SappJ. C.LewisK.YanesT.FacioF. M.BieseckerL. G.BieseckerB. B. (2014). Research participants’ attitudes towards the confidentiality of genomic sequence information. European Journal of Human Genetics, 22(8), 964–968. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.276
23.
JudsonR. S.MartinM. T.EgeghyP.GangwalS.ReifD. M.KothiyaP.. . . RichardA. M. (2012). Aggregating data for computational toxicology applications: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) aggregated computational toxicology resource (ACToR) system. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 13(2), 1805–1831. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms13021805
24.
KaufmanD. J.BakerR.MilnerL. C.DevaneyS.HudsonK. L. (2016). A survey of U.S adults’ opinions about conduct of a nationwide precision medicine initiative® cohort study of genes and environment. PLoS ONE, 11(8), Article e0160461. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0160461
25.
KaufmanD. J.Murphy-BollingerJ.ScottJ.HudsonK. L. (2009). Public opinion about the importance of privacy in biobank research. American Journal of Human Genetics, 85(5), 643–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.10.002
LemkeA. A.WolfW. A.Hebert-BeirneJ.SmithM. E. (2010). Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics, 13(6), 368–377. https://doi.org/10.1159/000276767
28.
McGuireA. L.OliverJ. M.SlashinskiM. J.GravesJ. L.WangT.KellyP. A.. . . HilsenbeckS. G. (2011). To share or not to share: A randomized trial of consent for data sharing in genome research. Genetics in Medicine, 13(11), 948–955. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3182227589
29.
MikatiI.BensonA. F.LubenT. J.SacksJ. D.Richmond-BryantJ. (2018). Disparities in distribution of particulate matter emission sources by race and poverty status. American Journal of Public Health, 108(4), 480–485. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304297
30.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Returning individual research results to participants: Guidance for a new research paradigm.
OliverJ. M.SlashinskiM. J.WangT.KellyP. A.HilsenbeckS. G.McGuireA. L. (2012). Balancing the risks and benefits of genomic data sharing: Genome research participants’ perspectives. Public Health Genomics, 15(2), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1159/000334718
36.
PolidoriA.KwonJ.TurpinB. J.WeiselC. (2010). Source proximity and residential outdoor concentrations of pm(2.5), OC, EC, and PAHs. Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology, 20(5), 457–468. https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2009.39
37.
PoolR.RuschE., & Roundtable Environ Health Science. (2016). Principles and obstacles for sharing data from environmental health research: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Foundation for Statistical Computing.
40.
RudelR. A.DodsonR. E.PerovichL. J.Morello-FroschR.CamannD. E.ZunigaM. M.. . . BrodyJ. G. (2010). Semivolatile endocrine-disrupting compounds in paired indoor and outdoor air in two northern California communities. Environmental Science & Technology, 44(17), 6583–6590. https://doi.org/10.1021/es100159c
41.
SandersonS. C.BrothersK. B.MercaldoN. D.ClaytonE. W.AntommariaA. H.AufoxS. A.. . . HolmI. A. (2017). Public attitudes toward consent and data sharing in biobank research: A large multi-site experimental survey in the US. American Journal of Human Genetics, 100(3), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.01.021
42.
SandlerD. P.HodgsonM. E.Deming-HalversonS. L.JurasP. S.D’AloisioA. A.SuarezL. M.. . . WeinbergC. R. (2017). The sister study cohort: Baseline methods and participant characteristics. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(12), Article 127003. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP1923
43.
SchwartzJ. (2018). “Transparency” as mask? The EPA’s proposed rule on scientific data. The New England Journal of Medicine, 379(16), 1496–1497. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1807751
StingoneJ. A.Buck LouisG. M.NakayamaS. F.VermeulenR. C.KwokR. K.CuiY.. . . TeitelbaumS. L. (2017). Toward greater implementation of the exposome research paradigm within environmental epidemiology. Annual Review of Public Health, 38, 315–327. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-082516-012750
46.
SweeneyL.YooJ. S.PerovichL.BoronowK. E.BrownP.BrodyJ. G. (2017). Re-identification risks in HIPAA Safe Harbor data: A study of data from one environmental health study. Technology Science, 2017, Article 2017082801.
47.
TrinidadS. B.FullertonS. M.BaresJ. M.JarvikG. P.LarsonE. B.BurkeW. (2010). Genomic research and wide data sharing: Views of prospective participants. Genetics in Medicine, 12(8), 486–495. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181e38f9e
48.
TrinidadS. B.FullertonS. M.BaresJ. M.JarvikG. P.LarsonE. B.BurkeW. (2012). Informed consent in genome-scale research: What do prospective participants think?AJOB Primary Research, 3(3), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2012.662575
49.
WildC. P. (2005). Complementing the genome with an “exposome”: The outstanding challenge of environmental exposure measurement in molecular epidemiology. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 14(8), 1847–1850. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0456
50.
WildC. P. (2012). The exposome: From concept to utility. International Journal of Epidemiology, 41(1), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr236
51.
ZarateO. A.BrodyJ. G.BrownP.Ramirez-AndreottaM. D.PerovichL.MatzJ. (2016). Balancing benefits and risks of immortal data: Participants’ views of open consent in the personal genome project. Hastings Center Report, 46(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.523
52.
ZouG. (2004). A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. American Journal of Epidemiology, 159(7), 702–706.
53.
ZouG. Y.DonnerA. (2013). Extension of the modified Poisson regression model to prospective studies with correlated binary data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 22(6), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280211427759
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
