Hooker Claire, Capon Adam, Leask Julie
Centre for Values, Ethics and Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, NSW, Australia,
Environmental Health Branch, Health Protection NSW, Sydney, Australia.
Public Health Res Pract. 2017 Jan 15;27(1):2711709. doi: 10.17061/phrp2711709.
In this article, we summarise research that identifies best practice for communicating about hazards where the risk is low but public concern is high. We apply Peter Sandman's 'risk = hazard + outrage' formulation to these risks, and review factors associated with the amplification of risk signals. We discuss the structures that determine the success of risk communication strategies, such as the capacity for early communication to 'capture' the dominant representation of risk issues, the importance of communicating uncertainty, and the usefulness of engaging with communities. We argue that, when facing trade-offs in probable outcomes from communication, it is always best to choose strategies that maintain or build trust, even at the cost of initial overreactions. We discuss these features of successful risk communication in relation to a range of specific examples, particularly opposition to community water fluoridation, Ebola, and routine childhood immunisation.
在本文中,我们总结了一些研究,这些研究确定了在风险较低但公众关注度较高的情况下就危害进行沟通的最佳做法。我们将彼得·桑德曼的“风险=危害+愤怒”公式应用于这些风险,并审视与风险信号放大相关的因素。我们讨论了决定风险沟通策略成功与否的结构,比如早期沟通“捕捉”风险问题主要表征的能力、传达不确定性的重要性以及与社区互动的效用。我们认为,在面对沟通可能产生的结果之间的权衡时,始终最好选择能维持或建立信任的策略,即便以最初的过度反应为代价。我们结合一系列具体事例讨论成功的风险沟通的这些特点,特别是对社区水氟化、埃博拉以及儿童常规免疫接种的反对。