ArticleToxics2026
Public Views on Pesticide Exposure and Human Biomonitoring in Latvia: Evidence from Focus Groups and Media Analysis.
Article in Toxics, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Public awareness and perception of human biomonitoring (HBM) and pesticide exposure are essential for informed decision-making and policy, yet understanding remains limited and often shaped by media and advocacy. This study combined three focus group discussions with Latvian citizens and an online content analysis of pesticide-related posts. Discussions explored understanding of HBM, attitudes toward chemical exposures, and support for related research, while content analysis identified commonly discussed pesticides and the role of non-governmental organisations (NGO) in shaping public opinion. Findings indicate low awareness and frequent misconceptions about HBM, often confused with wearable health technologies rather than a tool for assessing internal chemical exposure. Concerns were mainly linked to food additives and household chemicals, with less attention to pesticides. Glyphosate emerged as the most debated pesticide, largely driven by NGO activity and media coverage. Trust in government initiatives was mixed, with concerns about political influence, industry interests, and data privacy. Nevertheless, participants expressed strong support for further national research. Overall, the results highlight gaps in public understanding and the significant influence of media and advocacy. Strengthening risk communication, transparency, and public engagement is essential to build trust and support the development of Latvia's HBM framework.
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.