ArticleToxics2025
Insights from Expert Interviews on Navigating the Complexity of Prioritizing Chemicals for Human Biomonitoring in Latvia.
Article in Toxics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human biomonitoring (HBM) is a vital tool for assessing chemical exposure in populations and informing evidence-based public health policy. For smaller countries such as Latvia, establishing a national HBM program presents specific challenges, including limited prior experience, national data gaps, and resource constraints. This study explores the expert experiences and reflections gathered during the development of Latvia's national HBM chemical prioritization process. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight experts who were directly involved in evaluating and selecting substances for inclusion in the program. The focus of this study is not on the outcomes of the prioritization itself-published elsewhere-but rather on the strategies applied, challenges encountered, and lessons learned in navigating the prioritization process. A qualitative content analysis identified several key themes, including limitations in data availability, institutional coordination challenges, differences in expert opinion, and the complexity of adapting international methodologies to the national context. Despite these obstacles, the process benefitted from interdisciplinary collaboration, iterative methodological refinement, and the strategic use of international frameworks. The findings offer practical insights for countries with limited resources that are initiating or refining their national HBM programs. This study highlights the importance of national data infrastructure, stakeholder engagement, and tailored methodological approaches to ensure an effective and context-sensitive prioritization process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.