Search

Returning results to participants of environmental exposure studies has become more common in recent years. Despite evidence of benefits for study participants, there are challenges in communicating results to people with limited resources or capacity to mitigate chemical exposures. We interviewed N = 54 participants and compared exposure report-back conducted in 2010-2013 across three susceptible study populations: 1) low-income pregnant individuals in the Chemicals in Our Bodies (CIOB) study; 2) the Center for the Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) cohort; and 3) early childhood educators (ECE). Report-back differed between the cross-sectional studies (CIOB and ECE), which offered an opportunity to consult with research staff by phone or email, and the prospective cohort study (CHAMACOS), which allowed for participants to discuss individual and group-level results directly with researchers at a community meeting. Participants in all three studies were motivated to participate by children's health and wanted more information about health implications and exposure reduction strategies, with cost and limited resources cited as common barriers to change. We observed overall positive experiences with report-back across studies, with improved environmental health literacy and constructive learning experiences that were most evident in CHAMACOS. While many noted individual actions they had made or intended to make to reduce exposures, CHAMACOS participants were more likely to mention systems-level changes achieved through actions such as contacting decision-makers and raising community awareness. Our findings suggest that researchers may have a unique opportunity to support environmental health literacy and informed action at both the individual and community or policy levels through long-term study engagement, various forms of direct consultation with study participants, and thoughtful report-back methods that leverage existing tools and are sensitive to barriers faced by specific study populations. This work informs best practices for communicating chemical exposure results among sensitive or highly exposed communities., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2025 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Bias-based bullying (i.e., bullying targeting actual or perceived aspects of one's identity) is a form of interpersonal victimization that has adverse consequences for youth functioning. While research has documented foundational knowledge on bias-based bullying, few studies have incorporated a multilevel longitudinal approach to examining theorized risk and protective factors of this complex phenomenon. The current study addresses this gap by investigating predictors (e.g., school climate and state laws) at multiple social-ecological levels and comparing the magnitude of coefficients. Three data sources were used: (a) data from a sample of adolescents ( N  = 639) participating in a four-wave longitudinal study regarding their experiences with bias-based bullying, (b) external data on enumerated anti-bullying laws, and (c) external data on protected categories in state hate crime statutes. We estimated a series of latent growth curve models to examine trajectories of bias-based bullying victimization over the 18-month study period and added social-ecological predictors (sociodemographic characteristics, peer support, family support, school climate, enumerated anti-bullying laws, and an index of protected categories in state hate crime laws) of bias-based bullying victimization. Key findings documented that sexual minority youth and youth identifying as another racial identity, non-Hispanic had higher initial bias-based bullying victimization scores, with sexual minority youth decreasing at a significantly more rapid rate than heterosexual youth. Peer support, family support, school climate, and enumerated anti-bullying laws were significantly associated with the intercept factor (i.e., initial status) of bias-based bullying victimization. Notably, school climate emerged as an important protective factor in the fully adjusted model, predicting initial bias-based bullying victimization scores. This study provides new information on risk and protective factors and is critical for tailoring prevention and intervention efforts to mitigate this form of victimization. Bolstering support for vulnerable youth and promoting a positive school climate are recommended., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Youth who experience bias-based harassment report more adverse functioning than those who report peer victimization not targeted at identity. Yet, there has been little research aimed at understanding how different forms of bias-based harassment influence well-being. The current study adds to the existing research through its comprehensive assessment of adolescents' direct and witnessed bias-based harassment exposures and examination of how exposures are associated with mental health and grades. We also evaluated three protective factors (adult support at school, peer support, and school belonging) for their associations with functioning after taking into account bias-based harassment exposures. Participants were 7,402 high school adolescents in the Northeast ( M age = 15.41 years, SD = 1.08). Results revealed differential associations with mental health and grades based on bias-based harassment types and highlighted the importance of support and belonging., (© 2025 Springer Publishing Company.)

Abstract: Objective: This abbreviated version of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine's (ACOEM) Work Disability Prevention and Management Guideline reviews the available evidence and provides recommendations to clinicians regarding interventions to help patients remain at or return to work.Methods: Systematic literature reviews were conducted. Studies were graded and evidence tables were created, with involvement of a multidisciplinary expert panel that evaluated the evidence and finalized recommendations for all clinical questions. Extensive peer review was performed. Consensus recommendations were formulated when evidence was lacking.Results: Evidence-based recommendations have been developed to guide work disability prevention and management.Conclusion: Clinicians should utilize quality evidence in determining treatment methods to prevent and alleviate work disability for workers., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2025 American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.)