A qualitative study of parents' experiences using family support services: applying the concept of surface and depth

UK policy and practice endorses family support for child well-being. Achieving such support requires multi-agency approaches, that consider all aspects of parents’ and children’s lives and which offer practical, social and emotional help. The potential for services to make a positive impact on parents and their families will depend in part on the level and nature of engagement. In this paper a case is made for the application of the two-part ‘surface and depth’ concept for understanding how practitioners engage with families and how they might improve the chances of supporting sustainable differences for parents and families. To illustrate, qualitative data from a review of family centre support provided by a north of England local authority, are presented. The review was commissioned to explore why families often need to re-engage with intensive support services. Data are drawn from interviews with parents (n=18, recruited following a survey of all those registered with the service during April – May 2009) and discussions with family centre support workers (n=4) and following thematic analysis three dominant themes emerged: ‘resources available’, ‘staff approach’ and ‘real life’, were appraised in light of the ‘surface and depth’ concept. Much of the work with parents effectively dealt with pressing needs. This felt gratifying for both parent and worker and supported immediate service engagement. However, each noted that the more complex issues in parents’ lives went unchallenged and thus the sustainability of progress in terms of parenting practice was questionable. A ‘strengths focused’ approach by staff, that understood needs in the context of parents’ ‘real life’ circumstances was important to parent engagement. Thus, longer term benefits from family support requires practitioners to work with parents to problem solve immediate issues whilst also digging deeper to acknowledge and seek to resolve the more complex challenges parents face in their real lives

Development of a biomarker for penconazole: a human oral dosing study and a survey of UK residents’ exposure

Penconazole is a widely used fungicide in the UK; however, to date, there have been no peer-reviewed publications reporting human metabolism, excretion or biological monitoring data. The objectives of this study were to i) develop a robust analytical method, ii) determine biomarker levels in volunteers exposed to penconazole, and, finally, to iii) measure the metabolites in samples collected as part of a large investigation of rural residents’ exposure. An LC-MS/MS method was developed for penconazole and two oxidative metabolites. Three volunteers received a single oral dose of 0.03 mg/kg body weight and timed urine samples were collected and analysed. The volunteer study demonstrated that both penconazole-OH and penconazole-COOH are excreted in humans following an oral dose and are viable biomarkers. Excretion is rapid with a half-life of less than four hours. Mean recovery of the administered dose was 47% (range 33%–54%) in urine treated with glucuronidase to hydrolyse any conjugates. The results from the residents’ study showed that levels of penconazole-COOH in this population were low with >80% below the limit of detection. Future sampling strategies that include both end of exposure and next day urine samples, as well as contextual data about the route and time of exposure, are recommended

Urinary biomarker concentrations of captan, chlormequat, chlorpyrifos and cypermethrin in UK adults and children living near agricultural land

There is limited information on the exposure to pesticides experienced by UK residents living near agricultural land. This study aimed to investigate their pesticide exposure in relation to spray events. Farmers treating crops with captan, chlormequat, chlorpyrifos or cypermethrin provided spray event information. Adults and children residing ≤100 m from sprayed fields provided first-morning void urine samples during and outwith the spray season. Selected samples (1–2 days after a spray event and at other times (background samples)) were analysed and creatinine adjusted. Generalised Linear Mixed Models were used to investigate if urinary biomarkers of these pesticides were elevated after spray events. The final data set for statistical analysis contained 1518 urine samples from 140 participants, consisting of 523 spray event and 995 background samples which were analysed for pesticide urinary biomarkers. For captan and cypermethrin, the proportion of values below the limit of detection was greater than 80%, with no difference between spray event and background samples. For chlormequat and chlorpyrifos, the geometric mean urinary biomarker concentrations following spray events were 15.4 μg/g creatinine and 2.5 μg/g creatinine, respectively, compared with 16.5 μg/g creatinine and 3.0 μg/g creatinine for background samples within the spraying season. Outwith the spraying season, concentrations for chlorpyrifos were the same as those within spraying season backgrounds, but for chlormequat, lower concentrations were observed outwith the spraying season (12.3 μg/g creatinine). Overall, we observed no evidence indicative of additional urinary pesticide biomarker excretion as a result of spray events, suggesting that sources other than local spraying are responsible for the relatively low urinary pesticide biomarkers detected in the study population

Engaging with community researchers for exposure science: lessons learned from a pesticide biomonitoring study

A major challenge in biomonitoring studies with members of the general public is ensuring their continued involvement throughout the necessary length of the research. The paper presents evidence on the use of community researchers, recruited from local study areas, as a mechanism for ensuring effective recruitment and retention of farmer and resident participants for a pesticides biomonitoring study. The evidence presented suggests that community researchers' abilities to build and sustain trusting relationships with participants enhanced the rigour of the study as a result of their on-the-ground responsiveness and flexibility resulting in data collection beyond targets expected

Biological monitoring of pesticide exposures in residents living near agricultural land

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is currently a lack of reliable information on the exposures of residents and bystanders to pesticides in the UK. Previous research has shown that the methods currently used for assessing pesticide exposure for regulatory purposes are appropriate for farm workers <abbrgrp><abbr bid="B1">1</abbr></abbrgrp>. However, there were indications that the exposures of bystanders may sometimes be underestimated. The previous study did not collect data for residents. Therefore, this study aims to collect measurements to determine if the current methods and tools are appropriate for assessing pesticide exposure for residents living near agricultural fields.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The study will recruit owners of farms and orchards (hereafter both will be referred to as farms) that spray their agricultural crops with certain specified pesticides, and which have residential areas in close proximity to these fields. Recruited farms will be asked to provide details of their pesticide usage throughout the spray season. Informed consenting residents (adults (18 years and over) and children(aged 4-12 years)) will be asked to provide urine samples and accompanying activity diaries during the spraying season and in additionfor a limited number of weeks before/after the spray season to allow background pesticide metabolite levels to be determined. Selected urine samples will be analysed for the pesticide metabolites of interest. Statistical analysis and mathematical modelling will use the laboratory results, along with the additional data collected from the farmers and residents, to determine systemic exposure levels amongst residents. Surveys will be carried out in selected areas of the United Kingdom over two years (2011 and 2012), covering two spraying seasons and the time between the spraying seasons.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The described study protocol was implemented for the sample and data collection procedures carried out in 2011. Based on experience to date, no major changes to the protocol are anticipated for the 2012 spray season although the pesticides and regional areas for inclusion in 2012 are still to be confirmed.</p