Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26308094›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

Engaging with Community Researchers for Exposure Science: Lessons Learned from a Pesticide Biomonitoring Study.

Paul Teedon, Karen S Galea, Laura MacCalman, Kate Jones, John Cocker, John W Cherrie, Martie van Tongeren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Paul TeedonSchool of Engineering and the Built Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Karen S GaleaCentre for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Riccarton, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Laura MacCalmanCentre for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Riccarton, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Kate JonesHealth and Safety Laboratory (HSL), Buxton, United Kingdom.
John CockerHealth and Safety Laboratory (HSL), Buxton, United Kingdom.
John W CherrieCentre for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Riccarton, Edinburgh, United Kingdom; School of Life Sciences, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Martie van TongerenCentre for Human Exposure Science, Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), Riccarton, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A major challenge in biomonitoring studies with members of the general public is ensuring their continued involvement throughout the necessary length of the research. The paper presents evidence on the use of community researchers, recruited from local study areas, as a mechanism for ensuring effective recruitment and retention of farmer and resident participants for a pesticides biomonitoring study. The evidence presented suggests that community researchers' abilities to build and sustain trusting relationships with participants enhanced the rigour of the study as a result of their on-the-ground responsiveness and flexibility resulting in data collection beyond targets expected.

Indexed as

CommunicationData CollectionEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringHumansPersonnel SelectionPesticidesResearch DesignResearch PersonnelResidence CharacteristicsPesticides

Identifiers

PMID26308094
PMCPMC4550258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.