Trial Outcomes & Findings for Impacts of Clinician-Mediated Report-Back (NCT NCT06074159)

Participants were recruited from two prospective pregnancy cohort studies. For our study, we analyzed outcomes from different approaches to sharing chemical exposure results (self-guided versus in-clinic report-back). For both cohorts, participants were randomly assigned to the clinician-guided or self-guided intervention group and then contacted by phone, email, and/or text to enroll in the study. A pre-test was given after enrolling, participants viewed reports, and then did a post-test.

Only study participants who received personal exposure reports were considered enrolled in the study. Clinicians also took part in the study but were not considered enrolled.

Impacts of Clinician-Mediated Report-Back

Participants were asked to respond to a series of 9-11 statements about environmental exposures and select if they were true, probably true, probably false, or false. Responses were re-coded to indicate correctness, and index score was calculated as the fraction of correct responses across all questions for each participant (0-1). Pre-survey knowledge indices were subtracted from post-survey indices to calculate the change after report-back (i.e., pre-post-survey change in knowledge is reported below). A larger reported mean below would indicate that report-back mode resulted in a larger knowledge gain (a better outcome).

Participants were asked to rank their agreement with four satisfaction questions at the post-survey using a Likert-scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Responses to all four questions were summed to calculate post-report-back sum satisfaction from 4-20. A higher score indicates more satisfaction (a better outcome).

Participants ranked the strength of each feeling using a Likert-scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (very strong). Pre-survey responses were subtracted from post-survey responses to calculate the change after report-back. A higher score for outcomes measures such as empowered and respected indicates a better outcome.

Participants were asked to respond to a series of seven statements and rate confidence in their abilities using a Likert-scale from 0 (cannot do it at all) to 6 (highly certain I can do it). Responses to all seven questions were summed to calculate a perceived self-efficacy scale from 0-42. Pre-survey scales were subtracted from post-survey scales to calculate the change after report-back. A higher scores indicates a better outcome.

Participants were asked to rate how frequently they engaged in exposure-related behaviors during the previous two weeks using a Likert-scale from 0 (never) to 3 (Always/almost every day). Pre-survey responses were subtracted from post-survey responses to calculate the change after report-back. A higher score indicates a better outcome for questions such as 'look for information about chemical ingredients', whereas a lower score indicates a better outcome for questions such as 'microwave food in plastic containers.'