Risk Communication: An Introduction Baruch Fischhoff University Professor Carnegie Mellon Department...
-
Upload
kailey-caperton -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of Risk Communication: An Introduction Baruch Fischhoff University Professor Carnegie Mellon Department...
Risk Communication:An Introduction
Baruch FischhoffUniversity Professor
Carnegie MellonDepartment of Social & Decision SciencesDepartment of Engineering & Public Policy
Adapted for the SuperCourse from a talk to
International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology”April 19-20, 2004
Overview
Communication research strategiesTwo case studies
medical informed consentpublic health information management
Six brief examplesCommunication research management
Pressure for Lay Participationin Decisions Involving Risks
healthfinanceenvironmentnational security…
Poor Execution Can…
undermine effective lay decision making create feelings of helplessness erode public faith in authorities erode authorities’ faith in the public erode the social coordination produced by sharing trusted information sources
Research Strategy Choices
Begin with formal analysis?Persuasive or non-persuasive?Optimality or mastery?Which individual differences?
Research Strategy Choices
Begin with formal analysis?Persuasive or non-persuasive?Optimality or mastery?Which individual differences?
Also: Do you consider affect? social context? resources? …(potentially important, but outside present talk)
Behavioral Decision Research
Normative analysis of decision situationDescriptive behavioral research, in terms
comparable to normative analysisPrescriptive interventions, closing gaps
between normative ideal anddescriptive reality
Behavioral Decision Research Strategy Choices
Begin with formal analysis? yesPersuasive or non-persuasive? Non (default)Optimality or mastery? eitherWhich individual differences? circumstances, values, competence
Three Classes of Information
QuantitativeHow big are the risks - and benefits?
QualitativeWhat determines risks - and benefits?
Communication processWhat is social context of message?
calculating expected utilityassessing the value of new information setting prioritiesapplying a threshold for concern
Uses of Quantitative Information
making quantitative information credible
reconciling competing claims
generating options
monitoring environment for changes
feeling realistically empowered
Uses of Qualitative Information
establishing source credibility(competence, honesty)
assessing source expectations(audience competence, locus of
control)identifying conversational context
(interpretation, reading between the lines)
Uses of Process Information
Surgery can extend life, but lots can go wrong.
Patients face flood of information at a stressful time.
Physicians face duty to inform.
(with Jon Merz, Paul Fischbeck, Dennis Mazur)
A Quantitative Information Example:
Carotid Endarterechtomy
Normative Analysis
Value-of-information analysis, using risk analyses of patient - relevant outcomes, formalizing the materiality standard
deathstrokefacial paralysismyocardial infarctionlung damageheadache resurgerytracheostomygastrointestinal upsetbroken teeth…….
Many Possible Side Effects
death 15.0%stroke 5.0facial paralysis 3.0myocardial infarction 1.1lung damage 0.9headache 0.8resurgery 0.4tracheostomy 0.2gastrointestinal upset 0.09broken teeth 0.01
(% that would decline, if they knew of each risk)
But knowledge of only a few would affect many patients’ choices
Descriptive Research (anticipated)
Patients don’t know probabilities of top risks: death, stroke, facial nerve paralysis
Patients don’t know event meaning forfacial paralysis
verbal quantifiers (e.g., “likely” threat)experientially unfamiliar eventsvalue uncertainty (what do I really want?)
but not
very low probabilitiescumulative risk (from repeated exposure)
Prescriptive Design Issues (1)Identify Communication Challenges
knowledgeinferential abilityappropriateness of confidenceappropriateness of self-efficacypersonally rational choicessatisfaction (?)
Prescriptive Design Issues (2)Choose Performance Measures
Conclusions
Systematically using clinical trial results can: drastically simplify task
(for patient & physician)formalize materiality standardset research priorities
The adequacy of non-persuasive communication
is plausible, but not proven
Research Strategy
Begin with formal analysis? yesPersuasive or non-persuasive? nonOptimality or mastery? ptimalityWhich individual differences?
health status, values(assume competence)
A Qualitative Information (and Communication Process)
Example: Emergency Notification for Waterborne Pathogens
Cryptosporidium intrusion in domestic water supplies. Special vulnerabilityfor immunocompromised individuals.
(Liz Casman, Felicia Wu, Claire Palmgren, Mitch Small, Joan Rose, Hadi Dowlatabadi)
Normative Analysis
Behaviorally realistic model of system performance, including detection, organizational coordination, and consumer response
Units: Averting_behavior
Definition: if consumer_awareness =0 then 0 else if consumer_awareness =1 then 1 else if info_sources > 0 then 2 else 2
Inputs: Consumer_a…Consumer Awareness for Public Systems
Info_sources Info Sources
Outputs: Consumptio…Consumption of Treated Water
Decision
Title: Averting Behavior for Public Systems
Description: Do consumers do something to avoid any possible risk of cryptosporidial infection? Correct averting behavior includes boiling drinking water and switching to safe water sources. Washing dishes, tooth brushing, and rinsing vegetables are not presently considered high risk behaviors for immunocompetent people in developed countries. Showering is not risky. Only filters with an absolute (not nominal) pore size Š 1 micron can effectively remove oocysts. (MMWR, 1995) Use of other types of filters do not constitute correct averting behavior. reference: MMWR 1995. Assessing the public health threat associated with waterborne cryptosporidiosis: report of a workshop. Rep. 44(RR-6):1-19. 0 = no action or inappropriate action (eg charcoal filter) 1 = avoid most tap water 2 = boil drinking water or use clean bottled water
Descriptive Research
“Mental models” interviews (open-ended, structured by model)
with:
HIV+ individuals:knew a lot, could do little
residents of communities with past intrusions:
knew little, mildly curious
Conclusions
Abandon emergency communication for crypto (perhaps OK for other contaminants, E. coli, bioterror)Provide bottled water to those at riskReevaluate communications for other immunocompromised individuals
Research Strategy
Begin with formal analysis? yesPersuasive or non-persuasive? persuasiveOptimality or mastery? masteryWhich individual differences?
health status, values, competence
Six Brief Examples
Sexual assault prevention adviceTeen STI riskVaccines (anthrax, MMR)Dietary supplementsHazardous chemicalsHomeland security
Problem: confident, universal, contradictory advice fosters confusion and guilt
Normative: inventory of strategies, meta-analysis of effectiveness studies, identification of valuesDescriptive: nuanced belief structure, exaggerated effectivenessPrescriptive: create realistic expectations, promote research evaluating effectiveness
Sexual Assault
Problem: flood of repetitious information creates illusion of understanding.
Normative: influence diagram summarizing decision-relevant scienceDescriptive: broad knowledge of HIV/AIDS, with critical “bugs”; little knowledge of other STIs, limited feeling of controlPrescriptive: targeted HIV/AIDS messages; DVD on sexual decision making
STIs (teens)
Problem: mistrust of officials affects trust in medicine
Normative: comprehensive model of factors determining health, trustDescriptive: critical issues outside official problem space, terminological confusionPrescriptive: provide context, including “irrelevant concerns”; research as communication
Vaccination (anthrax, MMR)
Problem: commercial-freedom-of-speech policies expanding direct-to-consumer communication
Normative analysis: model sensitive to burden of responsibility for consumer/market failureDescriptive analysis: court-mandated labels may erode consumer rationalityPrescriptive analysis: standardized, validated labels; legal standard for adequacy
Dietary supplements
Problem: Can voluntary controls substitute for regulatory controls?
Normative: diffusion/uptake model, including effects of behaviorDescriptive: ineffective measures intuitively appealing (e.g., gloves, in-room breaks)Prescriptive: standardized, validated labels; legal standard for adequacy
Hazardous Chemicals
Problem: Plans without behavioral input
Normative: Behaviorally realistic emergency response modelDescriptive: Simple facts not transmitted; unfounded belief in panic; specific fears decline, general anxiety stablePrescriptive: Communication to experts, interdisciplinary teams, preemptive messages
Homeland Security
Also…
BSESARSHRTGMOsXenotransplantationsmallpox (vaccination)…
General Conclusions
Effective risk communication requires continuing collaboration among domain specialists, risk analysts, risk communicators, practitioners, andpatients (or their representatives) -- with each willing to have its assumptions challenged.
Why doesn’t everyone adoptbehavioral decision research?
Possible Professional Reasons
need for specializationseparation of research worldsisolation of researchers from practitionerspredisposition to persuasionpredisposition to sweeping generalizations…
Possible Management Reasons
focus on single outcomenarrow reviewing of proposals and productsfavor method application over developmentmandate to persuadedifficulty of evaluating non-persuasive communications
Persuasive communication can inappropriately
undermine credibility of public and experts
alienate audienceoverlook critical audience goals &
constraintsimpose bureaucratic priorities
Non-persuasive communication can inappropriately
assume nonexistent abilitiesdeny people needed protectionsmuddle value issuesleave wrong priorities unchallenged
Non-persuasive communicationis needed when:
No single, clear optimal choicemultiple values, situationslarge uncertainties
No clear advisory roleexperts distrustedshared decision-making
option desired
The Empirical Question
How competent are lay people to participate?
Many Strong Opinions, Drawn from
assertionselected research evidenceanecdotal observation
small, unrepresentative samplesspeculative interpretationambiguity regarding decision frame
technocratic control
paternalistic regulation
irrational public
free marketspopular democracy
hyper-rational public
“conservative”“liberal” Political predisposition:
Behavioral assumption:
Common Rhetorical Answers
The Empirical Question(reformulated)
How competent are lay people to participate?
-- when facing specific decisions
-- and given half a chance
A (Complex) Working Hypothesis
People often do sensible things if:
They get relevant information in a concise, credible form with adequate context, and without distractions
They have control over their environment and are judged by their own goals
They have some minimal decision-making competence
Lita Furby, Marcia Morgan, Julie Downs, Wändi Bruine de Bruin, Sara Eggers, Matt Dombroski, Donna Riley, Mitch Small, Steve Risotto, Dan Kovacs, Paul Fischbeck, Claire Palmgren, Robyn Dawes, Rebecca Parkin, Gordon Butte, Sarah Thorne, Martha Embrey, Jenn Lerner, Roxana Gonzalez, Deb Small, Gabriel Silverman, Lisa Schwartz, Steve Woloshin…
Collaborators
Eggers, S.L., & Fischhoff, B. (in press). A defensible claim? Behaviorally realistic evaluation standards. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing.
Fischhoff, B. (1992). Giving advice: Decision theory perspectives on sexual assault. American Psychologist, 47, 577-588.
Fischhoff, B. (1994). What forecasts (seem to) mean. Intl Journal of Forecasting, 10, 387-403.
Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15, 137-145.
Fischhoff, B. (1999). Why (cancer) risk communication can be hard. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, 25, 7-13.
Fischhoff, B. (2000). Scientific management of science? Policy Sciences, 33, 73-87.
Sources