Sato Akiko, Honda Kaori, Ono Kyoko, Kanda Reiko, Hayashi Takehiko I, Takeda Yoshihito, Takebayashi Yoshitake, Kobayashi Tomoyuki, Murakami Michio
Department of Health Risk Communication, Fukushima Medical University School of Medicine, Fukushima, Japan.
Research Institute of Science for Safety and Sustainability, National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Ibaraki, Japan.
PeerJ. 2020 Aug 25;8:e9730. doi: 10.7717/peerj.9730. eCollection 2020.
Risk communication is widely accepted as a significant factor for policy makers, academic researchers, and practitioners in diverse fields. However, there remains a lack of comprehensive knowledge about how risk communication is currently conducted across fields and about the way risk communication is evaluated.
This study systematically searched for materials from three scholarly search engines and one journal with a single search term of "risk communication." The eligibility assessment selected peer-reviewed articles published in English that evaluated risk communication activities. Emphasis was placed on articles published in recent years accounting for about half of the pre-selected ones. Data on field of study, intervention timing, target audience, communication type, and objectives/evaluation indicators was extracted from the articles. Patterns of objectives/evaluation indicators used in risk communication activities were compared with those of the definitions and purposes of risk communication stated by relevant organizations. Association analysis was conducted based on study fields and objectives/evaluation indicators.
The screening process yielded 292 articles that were published between 2011 and 2017 in various fields, such as medicine, food safety, chemical substances, and disasters/emergencies. The review process showed that many activities were performed in the medical field, during non-/pre-crisis periods. Recent activities primarily targeted citizens/Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs), and was disseminated in the form of large group or mass communication. While "knowledge increase," "change in risk perception and concern alleviation," and "decision making and behavior change" were commonly addressed in practice, "trust-building" and "reduction in psychological distress" were rarely focused. The analysis also indicated that the medical field tends to perform risk communication at the individual or small group level, in contrast to the food safety field. Further, risk communications in the non-/pre-crisis period are more likely to aim at "changes in risk perception and concern alleviation" than those in the crisis period. Risk communications that aim at "changes in risk perception and concern alleviation" are likely to be presented in a large group or mass communication, whereas those that aim at "decision making and behavior change" are likely to be conducted at the individual or small group level.
An overview of recent activities may provide those who engage in risk communication with an opportunity to learn from practices in different fields or those conducted in different intervention timings. Devoting greater attention to trust building and reduction in psychological distress and exploring non-citizen/NPO stakeholders' needs would be beneficial across academic and professional disciplines.
风险沟通被广泛认为是政策制定者、学术研究人员以及不同领域从业者的一个重要因素。然而，目前对于跨领域风险沟通的开展方式以及风险沟通的评估方式仍缺乏全面的了解。
本研究通过三个学术搜索引擎和一本期刊，使用单一搜索词“风险沟通”系统地搜索资料。资格评估选择了以英文发表的、评估风险沟通活动的同行评审文章。重点关注近年来发表的文章，约占预选文章的一半。从文章中提取了研究领域、干预时机、目标受众、沟通类型以及目标/评估指标的数据。将风险沟通活动中使用的目标/评估指标模式与相关组织阐述的风险沟通定义和目的的模式进行比较。基于研究领域和目标/评估指标进行关联分析。
筛选过程产生了292篇于2011年至2017年间在医学、食品安全、化学物质以及灾害/紧急情况等各个领域发表的文章。综述过程表明，许多活动是在医学领域、非危机/危机前时期开展的。近期活动主要针对公民/非营利组织（NPO），并以大型群体或大众传播的形式进行传播。虽然在实践中通常涉及“知识增加”“风险认知改变与担忧缓解”以及“决策和行为改变”，但很少关注“建立信任”和“减轻心理困扰”。分析还表明，与食品安全领域相比，医学领域倾向于在个体或小群体层面开展风险沟通。此外，非危机/危机前时期的风险沟通比危机时期更有可能旨在“风险认知改变与担忧缓解”。旨在“风险认知改变与担忧缓解”的风险沟通可能以大型群体或大众传播的形式呈现，而旨在“决策和行为改变”的风险沟通可能在个体或小群体层面进行。
对近期活动的概述可能为从事风险沟通的人员提供一个机会，以便从不同领域或不同干预时机开展的实践中学习。在学术和专业领域，更加关注建立信任和减轻心理困扰，并探索非公民/非营利组织利益相关者的需求将是有益的。
