Key Challenges and Concepts in Health Risk Communication: Perspectives of Agency Practitioners

Abstract

The public demands that federal agencies provide information that is responsive to their fears and explains health risks clearly. In 1998 the Health Risk Communication Coordination Committee of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a federal public health agency, conducted three focus groups with agency staff to identify current knowledge and understanding of health risk communication (HRC); HRC issues, problems, and best practices; and most appropriate HRC training content. The results indicate a need for clearer communications with communities, greater sensitivity to community concerns and fears, more balanced media coverage, and more accuracy in reporting, among other findings.

From the Inside Out: Environmental Agency Views about Communications with the Public

“…These findings go beyond previous empirical studies about internal barriers to government risk communication (Shaw & Johnson, 1990; Fisher et al ., 1994; Tinker et al ., 2001), in that constraints are no longer merely an unsystematic laundry list of problems. Rather, this study ties specific problems to a specific perspective about program communications with the public, a perspective salient to some individuals but not to others.…”

“…For example, officials strongly agreed on the importance of public communication and the value of proactive and partnership efforts, but these views did not seem to be implemented in procedures (Shaw & Johnson, 1990; Chess et al ., 1991; Chess & Salomone, 1992; Fisher et al ., 1994). Perceived external barriers to effective communication included “public misunderstanding” and emotions (Chess et al ., 1991; Tinker et al ., 2001), “unbalanced media reporting” (Tinker et al ., 2001), and external politics (Chess et al ., 1990). Internal barriers to government risk communication were posited by officials as including (1) inadequate resources; (2) lack of time; (3) lack of upper‐management support; (4) resistance to communication as part of the job; (5) internal politics (e.g., competition for resources and power; “turf battles”; personality conflicts); (6) mismatch of authority or responsibility with appropriate skills; and (7) differences in cultures within and across agencies and professions (Shaw & Johnson, 1990; Fisher et al ., 1994; Tinker et al ., 2001).…”

Community Ecology and Capacity: Advancing Environmental Communication Strategies among Diverse Stakeholders

“…There is agreement that environmental communication among stakeholders be an integral component of the working relationship and that resources be allocated to develop public outreach plans that are tailored to the specific community (Brauer et al, 2004;Parkin, 2004). Given that stakeholder groups perceive risk differently, it is imperative for each group to appreciate the viewpoints of all involved to engage in effective dialog (Park et al, 2001;Tinker et al, 2001). Therefore, we propose that effective and proactive environmental communication that considers the community's ecology (i.e., social, cultural, economic and political composition) among all stakeholders in all types of communities with a regulated industry is essential when addressing perceived health risks to the environmental and population.…”

Communicating results to community residents: Lessons from recent ATSDR health investigations

“…In community health investigations around sources of environmental contamination, the affected community can include residents who either currently or previously had the potential for exposure to emissions from the contamination source. A multicomponent communication plan, tailored to the community, is developed based on an understanding of the community and its needs (Tinker et al, 2001). Much of what has been written about risk communication is based on a combination of theory, research, and anecdotal experience (Bennett, 1999).…”