Survey Report Resilience 2025 Day 1
The Key Takeaways from the Surveys on the First Day of Resilience
Resilience: An International Conference on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS)
May 1, 2025
This report presents a summary of the survey results collected before and after Day 1 of the Resilience 2025 conference, held on May 1, 2025. The goal of the survey was to assess participant demographics, understandings of Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS), motivations for attending the event, and the openness toward implementing fragrance-free practices in personal and professional environments.
In the pre-event survey, 65 participants shared their organizational affiliations. Responses represented a wide range of stakeholders, including academic institutions, patient-led groups, public agencies, advocacy organizations, and private citizens. Some notable organizations included the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, MACI, the Environmental Illness Society of Canada, Kindai University, SOS MCS, and the Library of Parliament. Most responses were in English, with eleven participants responding in French. The diversity of responses illustrated the global reach and multidisciplinary interest in MCS.
A total of 53 individuals provided their professional designations. These included directors, researchers, physicians, professors, advocates, students, and those living with MCS. Many participants also identified with multiple roles. The most commonly reported stakeholder group was individuals living with MCS, who made up over 41 percent of the total affiliations. Other affiliations included academia, health professionals, the public and private sectors, legal professionals, consumer and environmental health groups, and community organizations.
Participants were also asked about their geographic locations. The survey revealed broad participation, with the majority coming from Canada and the United States. Ontario accounted for over a quarter of the respondents, followed by Quebec, New Brunswick, and Alberta. International participation included individuals from the UK, Germany, Japan, France, Spain, Italy, Morocco, Australia, Ireland, Switzerland, and Israel.
Participants were asked to self-assess their understanding of MCS as a medical condition. Half of the respondents rated their understanding as a 4 on a 5-point scale, and just over a quarter gave themselves the highest rating. A small portion, approximately 6.67 percent, rated their understanding as low (1 or 2). When asked about their understanding of the health impacts of household chemicals, the responses followed a similar pattern. Over half rated their understanding at the highest level, while just under 35 percent rated it at 4. Fewer than 10 percent rated their knowledge at 3 or below.
The most common motivation for attending the event was to learn more about MCS and disability inclusion, a reason selected by over 50 percent of respondents. Other motivations included advocacy for policy reform, collaboration on future projects, networking with researchers, and other personal or professional interests. When asked to rate the importance of attending the event, over 70 percent gave it the highest possible rating. Only a small number of participants selected a mid-range score, and none indicated the event was of low importance.
The post-event survey had 38 participants and reflected many of the same organizations and affiliations as the pre-event survey. Respondents included members from the University of Oldenburg, the Fragrance Free Coalition, the Ottawa Environmental Health Clinic, CareNow Ontario, and others. Designations included founders, policy analysts, MDs, CEOs, board members, students, advocates, and those living with MCS. Participants again came from a diverse geographical background, with the USA and Ontario continuing to represent the largest groups. Other respondents were from Quebec, Alberta, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Japan, Germany, the UK, Spain, France, Italy, Morocco, and Australia.
Survey respondents were asked to rate their understanding of MCS before and after the event. Prior to the event, just over half rated their understanding at level 4, and approximately 21 percent rated it at 5. After attending the session, over 53 percent rated their knowledge as excellent, and nearly 40 percent rated it as 4. Only 7 percent selected level 3 after the event, indicating a positive shift in awareness. When asked more specifically about MCS as a medical condition, 32.14 percent at 5 and 51.79 percent rated their understanding at 4. Only 16 percent selected level 3, with no responses below that. Understanding of the health impacts of household chemicals was similarly high, with 58.62 percent selecting level 5 and 31.03 percent selecting level 4. No respondents gave low ratings.
The survey also examined participant environments. When asked whether their home had a fragrance-free or scent-free policy, 87.72 percent responded yes. Among those without such a policy, 92 percent were open to implementing one. Workplace environments showed lower adoption, with only 34.29 percent reporting an existing fragrance-free policy. However, 78.26 percent of those without such a policy expressed willingness to consider one, while another 17.39 percent were unsure. Only a single participant stated they would not consider such a policy.
In conclusion, the Day 1 survey results demonstrate that participants came from a broad cross-section of professional, geographic, and stakeholder backgrounds. The event succeeded in enhancing knowledge around MCS and the health impacts of household chemicals, as well as reinforcing the importance of fragrance-free environments. The findings show meaningful shifts in understanding and a high level of commitment to promoting accessibility and health-focused policies both at home and in professional settings.
*It is important to note that not all individuals who attended the event had successfully completed the survey. Though the surveys are an adequate representation of the attendees, the raw numbers do not completely cover the total number of people at the event. Over the two days of the conference, 870 participants had attended the conference, yet, only a small number of people had completed them. It is possible that some of the participants were experiencing technical difficulties, which interfered with their involvement in the conference. Furthermore, some attendees were affiliated with the government, and could not take part in the surveys. Overall, the numbers from the report represent only a small portion of the total number of participants.