Aspects Of Risk Communication Research Articles

A pilot heat-health warning system co-designed for a subtropical city.

Significant heat-related casualties underlie the urgency of establishing a heat-health warning system (HHWS). This paper presents an evidence-based pilot HHWS developed for Taipei City, Taiwan, through a co-design process engaging stakeholders. In the co-design process, policy concerns related to biometeorology, epidemiology and public health, and risk communication aspects were identified, with knowledge gaps being filled by subsequent findings. The biometeorological results revealed that Taipei residents were exposed to wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) levels of health concern for at least 100 days in 2016. The hot spots and periods identified using WBGT would be missed out if using temperature, underlining the importance of adopting an appropriate heat indicator. Significant increases in heat-related emergency were found in Taipei at WBGT exceeding 36°C with reference-adjusted risk ratio (RaRR) of 2.42, taking 30°C as the reference; and residents aged 0-14 had the highest risk enhancement (RaRR = 7.70). As for risk communication, occurring frequency was evaluated to avoid too frequent warnings, which would numb the public and exhaust resources. After integrating knowledge and reconciling the different preferences and perspectives, the pilot HHWS was co-implemented in 2018 by the science team and Taipei City officials; accompanying responsive measures were formulated for execution by ten city government departments/offices. The results of this pilot served as a useful reference for establishing a nationwide heat-alert app in 2021/2022. The lessons learnt during the interactive co-design processes provide valuable insights for establishing HHWSs worldwide.

National Documents Analysis of Risk Communication in Iran: Based on Disaster Risk Management Cycle

Background: Risk communication is a complex, multifaceted process that plays a significant role in disaster management. One of the criticisms of Iran's health system risk communication is the existence of legal gaps and deficiencies in upstream documents. Objectives: This research evaluated national documents to identify and assess the legislative gap in health system risk communication. Methods: This research is a gap analysis study using the qualitative content analysis method. National documents from 2002 to 2022 related to disaster management were collected. Documents were entered into the blueprint designed by the researcher and analyzed. Results: In the present study, 58 documents due to disaster management were extracted. After the initial review, 36 documents involving 266 items concentrating on risk communication were included in the research. In initial thematic analysis, 47 approvals due to the mitigation phase (five subcategories of information, education and public awareness, infrastructure development, community engagement, and preparation and maintenance of information systems), 61 approvals due to the preparedness phase (nine subcategories of monitoring, information and maintenance of database, creation and maintenance of network and communication infrastructure, coordination, organizational training, planning, determining level of access to information, communication, monitoring and evaluation), 133 approvals due to the response phase (11 subcategories of information management, informing, communication management, media management, trust building, organization and coordination, appointing a spokesperson, monitoring and control, use and management of social media, content production, and supply and maintenance of equipment and infrastructure), 25 approvals due to the phase of rehabilitation and reconstruction (four subcategories of documentation, information, training, and community engagement). Conclusions: The field of risk communication has been mentioned according to the revision and updating of documents in recent years, but in these documents, many aspects of risk communication were dim; therefore, experts in the field of disaster management should pay more attention to a review of these papers and the creation of a special document on risk communication.

How to Appropriately Communicate about Risk with Patients Diagnosed with Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms?

Unruptured intracranial aneurysms are rare and occur in approximately 3% of adults. Explaining the natural course of aneurysms and risk communication are challenging because most patients are asymptomatic and patients' perceived risk often exceeds the actual risk. This article discusses the following five aspects of risk communication on the natural course of the disease and treatment decisions: 1) the natural course of cerebral aneurysms, 2) how aneurysms should be followed upon if no interventions are planned, 3) how to explain treatment risks, 4) whether follow-ups are needed after treatment, and 5) lifestyle-related behaviors to prevent rupture. Discussions with patients should be carefully planned to avoid increased stress and fear. Long-term follow-up data of patients who did not undergo interventions indicated that only 25% of patients with aneurysms experienced a fatal rupture; most die from other causes. Patients with aneurysms require education on lifestyle-related risk factors such as hypertension, smoking, and lack of daily exercise.

Do words matter? health care providers’ use of the term prediabetes

Communication of risk is not solely the transfer of information; it is an interaction and exchange of ideas between concerned individuals. Health care provider communication about type 2 diabetes risk status may influence individual participation in behaviours that prevent or delay the disease, which is concerning from a public health perspective. The term prediabetes is used to convey risk status and little is known about how health care providers view or use the term. In this article, we describe health care provider use and perceptions of the term prediabetes drawing on data from interviews conducted between August and November 2011 of 15 health care providers practicing in Southeast Wyoming and Northern Colorado USA. We used a grounded theory research design to guide data collection and analysis and in the interviews invited providers to describe their use and perception of the term prediabetes. We found that providers’ use of the term ‘prediabetes’ depended on their view of the term’s meaning (e.g. whether patients were likely to understand or be confused by it) and impact (in terms of motivating patients to mitigate risk). We found there were differences in providers’ perceptions of the negative and positive associations of the term and this influenced whether or not they used it. These findings are not surprising given the lack of consensus over definitions and diagnosis criteria for prediabetes. Given this lack of agreement, there are difficulties about the use of the term prediabetes and its use should take place within effective risk communication. Health care providers must consider essential aspects of risk communication in order to enable individuals at risk of type 2 diabetes to mitigate the risk and by doing so reduce incidence and prevalence rates of the disease.

Risk Assessment Terminology: Risk Communication Part 1.

The paper describes the terminology of risk communication in the view of food safety: the theory of stakeholders, the citizens’ involvement and the community interest and consultation are reported. Different aspects of risk communication (public communication, scientific uncertainty, trust, care, consensus and crisis communication) are discussed.

Risk Communication: An Integral Element in Public Health Emergencies.

DEAR EDITOR, Over the years, multiple number of health emergencies (such as disease-outbreaks – H1N1 or Ebola disease, chemical accidents, radiation leaks, natural disasters, conflicts, wars, etc.), have been reported worldwide, which have claimed the lives of thousands of people.[1,2] However, in most of the instances the mental sufferings can be avoided, or lives of susceptible people can be saved, provided the local population had access to fast, effective and transparent communication.[1,2,3] In fact, realizing the scope of risk communication in preventing disease, disability, and even mortality, it has been considered as one of the eight integral functions, which the World Health Organization (WHO) member states must develop to effectively respond to both public health emergencies and humanitarian crises.[4] In general, risk communication refers to the real-time exchange of information, advice and opinions between experts and masses exposed to the threat, which can compromise their survival, health, economic or social well-being.[4] The primary objective of effective risk communication is to enable people at risk to take well-informed decisions not only to protect themselves, but even their loved ones from the emergency by taking appropriate and timely protective and preventive actions.[4] However, the success of risk communication is eventually dependant on thorough understanding of people's (in terms of their knowledge, practices, perceptions, concerns, beliefs, etc.); experts attributes (such as their credibility, caring and empathic nature, level of trust between experts and affected persons, etc.); and ability of the communicator to promptly detect the prevalent rumors/myths/misconceptions and address them before it starts interfering with the preventive and control measures.[4,5] Risk communication has been acknowledged as one of the lifesaving intervention, especially in public health emergencies.[1,2,3] This is so because people do have a right to know how to protect themselves and their relatives’ health by understanding and adopting protective behaviors by taking well-informed decisions.[2,3,4] Furthermore, the communication at times of emergencies has even benefited other stakeholders like local program managers (in assessing health impact of the emergencies and providing them evidence to develop an effective health response), donors and concerned public across the globe.[4] In addition, at times of emergencies, effective risk communication can empower nations/local communities to preserve their socioeconomic and political stability, and even prevent the loss of trust of people on public health authorities by enabling health officials to address people's concerns and needs so that relevant and acceptable advice can be communicated to the masses.[4,5] A wide range of communication techniques (viz., mass media, social networking, etc.) have been adopted to facilitate risk communication.[2,5] However, a wide range of challenges such as globalization; extensive international trade and travel; a complex animal-human interface; rise in threat of bioterrorism; enormous popularity of the social networking sites (because of which the reliance on health experts/authorities has seriously decreased, and at the same time it even encourages spread of rumors and incorrect information); and changes in the field of journalism (like 24-h journalism where most of the news consists of opinions rather than facts) and approach of journalists, have been identified which have seriously questioned the effectiveness of risk communication.[4,5] In the modern world, the need of the hour is to strengthen the existing risk communication capacity so that the existing challenges and the health emergencies can be tackled better.[4] The primary strategy is to implement the WHO guidelines released to cover different aspects of risk communication.[4,5] This includes components such as establishing a comprehensive policy and plans for risk communication; ensuring training of the health professionals/local officials so that they can acquire appropriate skills and be competent; conducting training sessions for journalists on how to report on health emergencies; devising a mechanism to discourage people to advertise incomplete or wrong information on social networking websites; and running simulation exercises to assess the extent of preparedness of nations.[4,6] In addition, the approach to constitute an Emergency Communications Network (ECN) system with an aim to identify, train, assess and deploy risk communication experts also deserves immense significance, so that the members (who have the ability to work in coordination with national and local authorities) of the network can be deployed at times of emergencies.[7] In fact, since the constitution of ECN, the members have been deployed in disease outbreak settings, humanitarian emergencies and in natural disasters.[7] To conclude, risk communication is an integral element of any public health emergency response and thus all efforts should be taken by the nations to strengthen the same, so that lives of numerous people can be saved at times of emergencies.

The Impact of the Cox-2 Inhibitor Issue on Perceptions of the Pharmaceutical Industry: Content Analysis and Communication Implications

The field of risk communication has its roots in the environmental, chemical, space, and nuclear arenas. As a number of these sectors have now vastly improved their communication strategies, attention is being placed on sectors that have been more problematic as of late. Examples of such sectors, include the food industries and the pharmaceutical/health sector. This article focuses on how large, multinational pharmaceutical companies can better communicate risks by analysis of one specific case, namely, that of the Cox-2 controversy.1 For purposes of this article, risk communication is best described as “the flow of information and risk evaluations back and forth between academic experts, regulatory practitioners, interest groups and the general public,” and “big pharma” refers to the more traditional R & D-based, innovative pharmaceutical companies. 1It should be noted that this article focuses strictly on the risk communication aspects surrounding the COX-2 scare. It does not deal with the science of COX-2 drugs, nor does it attempt to come to grips with their actual benefits and risks, as this is beyond the scope of this article and has been discussed elsewhere (e.g., Psaty & Furberg, 2005).

Communication and risk presentation in genetic counseling: Development of a checklist

Objective Genetic counseling involves advising people about genetic disorders, genetic risks and preventive measures, and guiding them in the process of decision-making. It remains unclear what effect certain aspects of risk communication have on outcomes like risk perception and the decisions people take. In order to examine this relationship between process and outcomes, the present study aimed to develop a reliable checklist to assess aspects of risk communication in genetic counseling. Methods A preliminary checklist was developed on base of literature and tested for manageability in a pilot study. The checklist was adapted and tested for inter-observer reliability in 14 and 56 genetic counseling sessions. Inter-observer reliability was measured by computing Kappa and proportions of agreement. Results Most of the items of the last version of the checklist had Kappa values between 0.4 and 1, which means that the inter-observer reliability for most items was sufficient or good. On the majority of items, the observers showed more than 80% agreement. Conclusion The checklist we have developed has adequate inter-observer reliability and may be applied in future studies to assess risk communication aspects in genetic counseling. Practice implications This checklist could be a useful instrument to identify the relationship between aspects of risk communication in genetic counseling and outcomes. Showing which communication skills and risk presentations affect client's feelings and decisions may help to improve genetic counseling.

The Good Lessons of Bad Experience

New scientific and political realities make it necessary for the United States to continue research and development (R & D) in commercial nuclear power. However, this approach must be based upon a new institutional management structure that recognizes commercial nuclear power as a “Faustian technology,” the management of which requires new forms of institutional controls. This new institutional design should involve a government-private consortium that is aimed at correcting past mistakes made by the institutional management of the commercial nuclear power industry from 1950 to 1975. The new institutional design must (a) involve a multiple partnership between government, industry, environmental interests, and other significant stakeholders; (b) begin with small-scale start-up technologies; (c) include an open public involvement process throughout its duration; (d) aspire to a new standard of institutional constancy; and (e) explicitly socialize management to the political aspects of risk communication as a basic technical preparation. The institutional constancy standard is particularly significant because it involves provisions for managing the intergenerational equities associated with commercial nuclear technology and an explicit recognition of problems associated with the social and temporal distribution of risk.

Aspects of Risk Communication in Two Cultures

When people from two distinct cultures attempt to communicate, they often fail to share the fundamental foundation upon which to establish meaningful two-way communication (e.g., language and belief). Risk communication under such circumstances demands special attention; extra effort on the part of people from both cultures to understand and appreciate the risks from a comprehensive perspective that accommodates both sets of interests. This paper examines the communication about risk between the U.S. Army and the native Polynesian cultures in the Pacific Ocean. Specifically, the article analyzes the written record of the proceedings to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that led up to the shipment of the European Stockpile of unitary chemical weapons to Johnston Atoll that was completed November 1990. The analysis indicates that while both the native cultures and the Army spoke the same language, the U.S. Army and the native cultures failed to communicate about the risks associated with the movement and destruction of weapons. They failed to establish risk communication dialogue, and never established a common framework for effective risk communication. The people involved from all groups did not establish a shared meaning and no dialogue was established to clarify meaning as misunderstandings occurred. This condition contributed to increased distrust, and undermined the credibility of both perspectives.