Insights from Expert Interviews on Navigating the Complexity of Prioritizing Chemicals for Human Biomonitoring in Latvia.

IF 4.1 3区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Toxics Pub Date : 2025-08-25 DOI:10.3390/toxics13090715
Linda Matisāne, Lāsma Akūlova, Ilona Pavlovska, Monta Matisāne, Ivars Vanadziņš
{"title":"Insights from Expert Interviews on Navigating the Complexity of Prioritizing Chemicals for Human Biomonitoring in Latvia.","authors":"Linda Matisāne, Lāsma Akūlova, Ilona Pavlovska, Monta Matisāne, Ivars Vanadziņš","doi":"10.3390/toxics13090715","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":23195,"journal":{"name":"Toxics","volume":"13 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12473308/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toxics","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13090715","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

从专家访谈的见解导航的复杂性优先化学品为人类生物监测在拉脱维亚。
人体生物监测(HBM)是评估人群中化学品暴露和为基于证据的公共卫生政策提供信息的重要工具。对于拉脱维亚等较小的国家,建立国家HBM计划面临着具体的挑战,包括有限的先前经验、国家数据差距和资源限制。本研究探讨了拉脱维亚国家HBM化学品优先排序过程发展过程中收集的专家经验和反思。与直接参与评估和选择纳入计划的物质的8位专家进行了半结构化访谈。本研究的重点不是优先排序本身的结果(已在其他地方发布),而是应用的策略、遇到的挑战以及在优先排序过程中获得的经验教训。定性内容分析确定了几个关键主题,包括数据可用性方面的限制、机构协调方面的挑战、专家意见的差异以及使国际方法适应国家情况的复杂性。尽管存在这些障碍,但这一进程受益于跨学科合作、不断改进的方法以及战略性地使用国际框架。研究结果为资源有限、正在启动或完善其国家HBM规划的国家提供了实际见解。本研究强调了国家数据基础设施、利益相关者参与和量身定制的方法方法的重要性,以确保有效和上下文敏感的优先排序过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Toxics
Toxics Chemical Engineering-Chemical Health and Safety
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
10.90%
发文量
681
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Toxics (ISSN 2305-6304) is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal which provides an advanced forum for studies related to all aspects of toxic chemicals and materials. It publishes reviews, regular research papers, and short communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in detail. There is, therefore, no restriction on the maximum length of the papers, although authors should write their papers in a clear and concise way. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files or software regarding the full details of calculations and experimental procedure can be deposited as supplementary material, if it is not possible to publish them along with the text.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信