Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study.
environmental health
human biomonitoring
participant experiences
report-back
research participation
risk communication
Journal
Toxics
ISSN: 2305-6304
Titre abrégé: Toxics
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101639637
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Mar 2021
28 Mar 2021
Historique:
received:
23
02
2021
revised:
19
03
2021
accepted:
22
03
2021
entrez:
3
4
2021
pubmed:
4
4
2021
medline:
4
4
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Communicating individual human biomonitoring results to study participants has been the subject of debate for some time. This debate is dominated by ethical considerations from a researchers' perspective on whether or not to communicate, thereby overlooking more practice-based questions from a participants' perspective on what and how to communicate. We conducted a small scale follow-up study based on eleven face-to-face interviews with mothers participating in the third cycle of the Flemish Environment and Health Study (FLEHS III 2012-2015) to investigate how they experienced and interpreted individual biomonitoring results. Key findings indicate that respondents were generally satisfied with participating in the biomonitoring study, but the report-back process especially lacked contextualized information and interactive communication options to better comprehend and cope with personal results. These findings also argue in favor of a more tailored approach in which report-back methods, formats and content are diversified according to the type of results and the preferences of participants. A reflexive research practice with active engagement in follow-up research is crucial to improve participants' understanding and use of personal biomonitoring results.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33800558
pii: toxics9040069
doi: 10.3390/toxics9040069
pmc: PMC8066005
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Environ Health. 2014 May 26;13:40
pubmed: 24886515
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jun 25;18(1):784
pubmed: 29940915
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016 Jul 08;13(7):
pubmed: 27399755
Environ Res. 2017 Feb;153:140-149
pubmed: 27960129
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Mar;220(2 Pt A):46-54
pubmed: 27692571
Placenta. 2010 Aug;31(8):686-90
pubmed: 20553811
Environ Justice. 2010 Sep 1;3(3):79-84
pubmed: 21546988
Environ Health Perspect. 2011 Jan;119(1):1-5
pubmed: 20876037
J Health Soc Behav. 2016 Sep;57(3):333-50
pubmed: 27601409
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2017 Apr-Jun;8(2):69-74
pubmed: 28949841
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2007 May;210(3-4):229-38
pubmed: 17157561
Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Feb 1;125(2):A27-A33
pubmed: 28145870
Environ Res. 2015 Jan;136:363-72
pubmed: 25460657
J Health Soc Behav. 2008 Dec;49(4):417-35
pubmed: 19181047
Chemosphere. 2020 Mar;242:125250
pubmed: 31896205
Environ Health. 2008 Jun 05;7 Suppl 1:S11
pubmed: 18541065
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2019 Jun;222(5):727-737
pubmed: 31176761
Am J Bioeth. 2006 Nov-Dec;6(6):20-1; author reply W10-2
pubmed: 17085397
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2012 Feb;215(2):102-8
pubmed: 22178406
Environ Health. 2010 May 04;9:20
pubmed: 20441591
Environ Health. 2007 Nov 22;6:36
pubmed: 18034882
Environ Health. 2009 Feb 28;8:6
pubmed: 19250551
Environ Health. 2018 May 21;17(1):48
pubmed: 29784007
Am J Public Health. 2007 Sep;97(9):1547-54
pubmed: 17666695
J Health Soc Behav. 2011 Jun;52(2):180-96
pubmed: 21673146
Environ Sci Process Impacts. 2016 May 18;18(5):562-74
pubmed: 27120003
Environ Res. 2015 Aug;141:31-41
pubmed: 25499539
Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2017 Mar;220(2 Pt A):36-45
pubmed: 28160993