Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33800558›Full record

ArticleToxics2021

Participant Experiences in a Human Biomonitoring Study: Follow-Up Interviews with Participants of the Flemish Environment and Health Study.

Bert Morrens, Hans Jonker, Elly Den Hond, Dries Coertjens, Ann Colles, Greet Schoeters, Nicolas Van Larebeke, Tim Nawrot, Adrian Covaci, Vera Nelen and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2021. 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. Article
  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

12 authors.

Bert MorrensFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1097-8382
Hans JonkerFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9923-440X
Elly Den HondDepartment of Health, Provincial Institute of Hygiene, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
Dries CoertjensFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0009-0723
Ann CollesHealth Unit, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), 2400 Mol, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6629-7973
Greet SchoetersHealth Unit, Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), 2400 Mol, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6556-4814
Nicolas Van LarebekeDepartment of Radiotherapy and Nuclear Medicine, University Ghent, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Tim NawrotCenter for Environmental Sciences, Hasselt University, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium.
Adrian CovaciToxicological Centre, University of Antwerp, 2610 Wilrijk-Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-0527-1136
Vera NelenDepartment of Health, Provincial Institute of Hygiene, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.
Frédéric VandermoereFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0003-4609-2775
Ilse LootsFaculty of Social Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2000 Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1198-5226

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

environmental healthhuman biomonitoringparticipant experiencesreport-backresearch participationrisk communication

Identifiers

PMID33800558
PMCPMC8066005

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.