|Framework||Orientation||Right-to-Know Emphasis||Communication Strategy||Protocol Development|
|Clinical Ethics||Biomedical||Weak||Individual results communicated if exposures reach clinical action levels, or if exposure/health outcome relationships are understood.||
Protocols developed primarily by scientific and medical experts.|
Participant confidentiality is paramount. No opportunities for participants to share results with each other.
|Community-Based Participatory Research||Prevention||Strong, while also protecting participants' right-not-to-know their results.||
Encourages communication of aggregate and individual-level results to study participants with an emphasis on explaining scientific uncertainties and addressing concerns about community stigmatization.|
Participant right-to-know explained at the point of study recruitment and consent.
Protocols developed jointly by scientific and community partners.|
Confidentiality of participants is important, although some studies may offer opportunities for participants to share results with each other, if they wish.
Protocols seek to balance community-right-to-know with individual right-to-know.
|Citizen-Science Data Judo||Advocacy||Strong||Encourages report-back of aggregate and individual-level results to study participant to support precautionary individual action, communications, and policy change.||
Protocols developed by scientific experts affiliated with advocacy organizations, sometimes with consultation from study participants.|
Participants encouraged to share results with each other and to speak publicly about their results to the media and broader public.