PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 3201014

Risk communication in the real world.

C S Konheim
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Rigorous health risk assessments of site-specific projects are generally little understood by nontechnical decision makers and the public and often appear to them to obfuscate a straightforward answer to their fundamental question: "Is the project safe?" The focus on risk, usually out of context of benefits, deprives the reader of the opportunity to make a fully informed decision on the proposal. While the risk assessment tools may need to be refashioned, confidence in the analytical process can be improved, partly through more citizen involvement, as well as through more effective communication of the conservatism of the assumptions, the thoroughness of the process, and the significance of the results in comparison to other commonly accepted involuntary exposures and risks.

Explore related subjects

CommunicationHealthHumansPublic OpinionRefuse DisposalRiskJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

C S Konheim. 1988. Risk communication in the real world.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1988.tb00499.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Information-sharing among couples considering multifetal pregnancy reduction.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the information-sharing strategies of couples considering fetal reduction, and the impact of these strategies on the chances of encountering hostility in their social networks. DESIGN: Cross-sectional design of semistructured qualitative interviews, coded with respect to sharing strategies and level of personally directed hostility encountered. SETTING: Multiple Pregnancy Management Program, Comprehensive Genetics, New York, New York. PATIENT(S) AND INTERVENTION(S): Fifty women and their partners who were making a first visit to our maternal-fetal management facility, in order to consider the possibility of multifetal reduction as a pregnancy-management strategy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Development of information-sharing strategies, and the chances of encountering personally directed hostility regarding multifetal reduction associated with more and less selective strategies. RESULT(S): Four information-sharing strategies emerged from the analysis. Two of these strategies were relatively open (extended network, and both parents). Two other strategies were relatively selective (qualified family and friends, and defended relationship). The selective strategies were significantly less likely to encounter to encounter personally directed hostility (odds ratio, 3.88; 95% confidence intervals, 0.87-17.30). CONCLUSION(S): Selective sharing of information for couples considering multifetal prgnancy reduction is a potentially useful strategy for moderating potentially stressful relationships in their social networks. Clinics should find a way of integrating the discussion of selective sharing into their clinic's cultural repertoire of patient-support services.

Communication↗