Cargando…
Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study
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 parti...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8066005/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33800558 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxics9040069 |
_version_ | 1783682473385787392 |
---|---|
author | Morrens, Bert Jonker, Hans Den Hond, Elly Coertjens, Dries Colles, Ann Schoeters, Greet Van Larebeke, Nicolas Nawrot, Tim Covaci, Adrian Nelen, Vera Vandermoere, Frédéric Loots, Ilse |
author_facet | Morrens, Bert Jonker, Hans Den Hond, Elly Coertjens, Dries Colles, Ann Schoeters, Greet Van Larebeke, Nicolas Nawrot, Tim Covaci, Adrian Nelen, Vera Vandermoere, Frédéric Loots, Ilse |
author_sort | Morrens, Bert |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8066005 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80660052021-04-25 Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study Morrens, Bert Jonker, Hans Den Hond, Elly Coertjens, Dries Colles, Ann Schoeters, Greet Van Larebeke, Nicolas Nawrot, Tim Covaci, Adrian Nelen, Vera Vandermoere, Frédéric Loots, Ilse Toxics Communication 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. MDPI 2021-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC8066005/ /pubmed/33800558 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxics9040069 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ). |
spellingShingle | Communication Morrens, Bert Jonker, Hans Den Hond, Elly Coertjens, Dries Colles, Ann Schoeters, Greet Van Larebeke, Nicolas Nawrot, Tim Covaci, Adrian Nelen, Vera Vandermoere, Frédéric Loots, Ilse Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study |
title | Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study |
title_full | Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study |
title_fullStr | Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study |
title_short | Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study |
title_sort | participant experiences in a human biomonitoring study: follow-up interviews with participants of the flemish environment and health study |
topic | Communication |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8066005/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33800558 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/toxics9040069 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT morrensbert participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT jonkerhans participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT denhondelly participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT coertjensdries participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT collesann participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT schoetersgreet participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT vanlarebekenicolas participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT nawrottim participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT covaciadrian participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT nelenvera participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT vandermoerefrederic participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy AT lootsilse participantexperiencesinahumanbiomonitoringstudyfollowupinterviewswithparticipantsoftheflemishenvironmentandhealthstudy |