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

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.

Human urinary biomonitoring in Western Kenya for micronutrients and potentially harmful elements

“…As Morrens et al (2021) pointed out, there is no universal consensus to communicate individual results to study participants, where most surveillance studies, including this study are designed to communicate aggregated results. For this study, aggregated data has been communicated with public health administrators for onward public health contextual interpretation with community workers, alongside individual data for follow-up on exceedances or where specifically requested by the participants.…”