IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v15y2018i6p1129-d149880.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perspectives on Biological Monitoring in Environmental Health Research: A Focus Group Study in a Native American Community

Author

Listed:
  • Melissa Gonzales

    (Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC10 5550, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA)

  • Elanda King

    (Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC10 5550, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA)

  • Jeanette Bobelu

    (Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC 08 4670 Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA)

  • Donica M. Ghahate

    (Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC 08 4670 Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA)

  • Teresa Madrid

    (Office for Diversity, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC 09 5235 Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA)

  • Sheri Lesansee

    (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Center for Health Policy, University of New Mexico, MSC 02 1645, Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA)

  • Vallabh Shah

    (Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center, MSC 08 4670 Albuquerque, NM 87131, USA)

Abstract

Background: Reliance on natural resources brings Native American communities into frequent contact with environmental media, which, if contaminated, represents an exposure route for environmental pollutants. Native American communities vary in their perspectives on research and relatively little is known about the range of perspectives regarding the use of biological samples for environmental exposure assessment. Methods: Thirty-one members of Zuni Pueblo (median age = 40.0 years, range = 26–59 years) participated a series of four focus groups. Qualitative themes emerging from the focus group discussion transcripts were identified by content analysis. Results : Emergent themes included adequate informed consent, traditional beliefs, and personal choice. Conclusions: The discussions reinforced the central role of traditional values in the decision to participate in research involving biological samples for environmental exposure assessment. Decision-making required a balance between the perceived value of the proposed project and its purpose, with cultural perspectives surrounding the biological sample requested. We examine the potential for study bias and include recommendations to aid in the collaborative identification and control of unintended risks posed by the use of biological samples in environmental health studies in native communities.

Suggested Citation

  • Melissa Gonzales & Elanda King & Jeanette Bobelu & Donica M. Ghahate & Teresa Madrid & Sheri Lesansee & Vallabh Shah, 2018. "Perspectives on Biological Monitoring in Environmental Health Research: A Focus Group Study in a Native American Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-8, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:6:p:1129-:d:149880
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/6/1129/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/15/6/1129/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McGrath, M.M. & Fullilove, R.E. & Kaufman, M.R. & Wallace, R. & Fullilove, M.T., 2009. "The limits of collaboration: A qualitative study of community ethical review of environmental health research," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(8), pages 1510-1514.
    2. Kelley, A. & Belcourt-Dittloff, A. & Belcourt, C. & Belcourt, G., 2013. "Research ethics and indigenous communities," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 103(12), pages 2146-2152.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maria Uhl & Ricardo R. Santos & Joana Costa & Osvaldo Santos & Ana Virgolino & David S. Evans & Cora Murray & Maurice Mulcahy & Dorothy Ubong & Ovnair Sepai & Joana Lobo Vicente & Michaela Leitner & S, 2021. "Chemical Exposure: European Citizens’ Perspectives, Trust, and Concerns on Human Biomonitoring Initiatives, Information Needs, and Scientific Results," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-17, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diana Rohlman & Jamie Donatuto & Myk Heidt & Michael Barton & Larry Campbell & Kim A. Anderson & Molly L. Kile, 2019. "A Case Study Describing a Community-Engaged Approach for Evaluating Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Exposure in a Native American Community," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Vanessa Y. Hiratsuka & Julie A. Beans & Renee F. Robinson & Jennifer L. Shaw & Ileen Sylvester & Denise A. Dillard, 2017. "Self-Determination in Health Research: An Alaska Native Example of Tribal Ownership and Research Regulation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-11, October.
    3. Parker, Tassy & Kelley, Allyson & Cooeyate, Norman & Tsosie, Nathania, 2024. "Participatory training evaluation: Steps from the Center for Native American Health Native-CHART symposium," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Conde, Marta, 2014. "Activism mobilising science," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 67-77.
    5. Jonathan Credo & Jani C. Ingram, 2021. "Perspective Developing Successful Collaborative Research Partnerships with AI/AN Communities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(17), pages 1-10, August.
    6. Jeffrey J. Brooks, 2022. "Genuine tribal and Indigenous representation in the United States," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-6, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:15:y:2018:i:6:p:1129-:d:149880. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.