Schotland Marieka S, Bero Lisa A
Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco 94143-0936, USA.
Risk Anal. 2002 Feb;22(1):131-40. doi: 10.1111/0272-4332.t01-1-00011.
Risk assessments form the methodological basis for many public policies. A key component of the risk assessment process is the public commentary period. We conducted a case study of the California environmental tobacco smoke risk assessment to describe the contribution of the commentary to the risk assessment process. We used content analysis to examine the sources, quantity, and quality of public commentary, as well as the agency's response to the commentary. We examined the type and quality of publications cited in the commentary. Most of the comments were from critics of the risk assessment (36/44, 80%), especially tobacco industry affiliates (30/36, 83%). Critics were more likely to evoke the science evaluation criteria of study quality, reliability, and validity than were supporters. More than half the critics argued that appropriate procedures were not followed (13/23, 57%). Of the 29 commentaries on the respiratory, carcinogenic, and cardiovascular chapters, four resulted in changes to the risk assessment, such as the addition of new references or reanalysis of data. Journal articles were the most frequently cited type of reference, cited by critics (1,022/1,526 of references, 67%) and supporters (39/60, 65%). However, journal articles submitted by critics had lower impact factors than those cited by supporters (2.6 vs. 3.6, p=0.03). Participation in the public input process was not balanced among all interested parties, although this may reflect different opportunities for stakeholders to participate in stages of the process. Critics and supporters of the risk assessment used different criteria to evaluate the scientific evidence, suggesting that they were socially constructing the evidence to support their positions.
风险评估构成了许多公共政策的方法基础。风险评估过程的一个关键组成部分是公众意见征询期。我们对加利福尼亚州环境烟草烟雾风险评估进行了一项案例研究，以描述公众意见对风险评估过程的贡献。我们使用内容分析法来研究公众意见的来源、数量和质量，以及该机构对这些意见的回应。我们考察了公众意见中所引用出版物的类型和质量。大多数意见来自风险评估的批评者（44条意见中的36条，80%），尤其是烟草行业附属机构（36条意见中的30条，83%）。与支持者相比，批评者更有可能援引研究质量、可靠性和有效性等科学评估标准。超过一半的批评者认为没有遵循适当的程序（23条意见中的13条，57%）。在关于呼吸、致癌和心血管章节的29条意见中，有4条意见导致了风险评估的变化，例如增加新的参考文献或重新分析数据。期刊文章是最常被引用的参考文献类型，批评者引用的比例为（1526条参考文献中的1022条，67%），支持者引用的比例为（60条参考文献中的39条，65%）。然而，批评者提交的期刊文章的影响因子低于支持者引用的文章（2.6对3.6，p = 0.03）。尽管这可能反映了利益相关者在该过程不同阶段参与的不同机会，但在所有感兴趣的各方中，参与公众意见征询过程并不均衡。风险评估的批评者和支持者使用不同的标准来评估科学证据，这表明他们在从社会角度构建证据以支持自己的立场。
