Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy - orau.gov · Risk Communication as an Intervention...
Transcript of Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy - orau.gov · Risk Communication as an Intervention...
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy
March 19, 2009
Risk Communication TeamNational Center for Food Protection and Defense
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Overview
Any opinions, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this broadcast are those of the NCFPD Risk Communication Project and do not represent the policy or position of the Department of Homeland Security.
• Best Practices• Key Points of Interventions• Cultural Impact• Industry Expectations
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Best Practices
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Intervention Points
• Early Recognition• Initial Warning
– Specific vs. General– Equivocal vs. Certain
• Targeting Messages• Ease of Reseponse
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Key Elements of Message Testing: Learning Styles• Abstract
Conceptualization• Active Experimentation • Reflective Observation• Concrete Experience
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Audience Perception of Risk Messages
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Salmonella Outbreak Simulation: Point of Initial Warning
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
40
45
50
55
60
651 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106
113
120
127
134
141
148
155
162
169
176
183
190
197
204
211
218
225
232
239
246
253
260
267
274
281
288
295
302
309
316
323
330
337
344
Dia
l
Time in Seconds
Audience Perception for Entire Video
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Abstract Conceptualization
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
1 4 7 1013161922252831343740434649525558616467707376
Dia
l
Time in Seconds
CDC Message: Part 1
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355
Dia
l
Time in Seconds
CDC Message: Part 2
Active Experimentation
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
50.5
51
51.5
52
52.5
53
53.5
54
54.5
55
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Dia
l
Time in Seconds
CDC Message: Part 3
Reflective Observation I
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
54555657585960
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415
Dia
l
Time in Seconds
Food Corp Representative
54
54.5
55
55.5
56
56.5
57
57.5
58
58.5
59
59.5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Dia
l
Time in Seconds
Food Corp RepresentativeReflective Observation II
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
45
50
55
60
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40
Dia
l
Time in Seconds
The Story of Dorothy
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Dia
l
Time in Seconds
The Story of Dorothy
Concrete Experience
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Key Points of Intervention: Modeling Food Recalls and Warnings
Matthew Seeger Ph.D.Wayne State University
Department of Communication
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
A Broken system
• Slow Identification• Cascading Warnings• Passive Communication• Complex Messages• No Targeting of Messages• Risk Fatigue
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Communicating Risk and Crisis With Multicultural Groups: Message Testing Events of Food Contamination
Robert S. Littlefield, Ph.DRisk+Crisis Communication Project
North Dakota State University
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Phase One Findings• Vulnerable publics differ in their prioritization of
crisis and emergency risk information.
• Vulnerable publics prefer spokespersons that represent their culture/community.
• Vulnerable publics identify five of the best practices as key: media accessibility; compassion, concern, and empathy; honesty, candor, and openness; tolerance for ambiguity; and self-efficacy.
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Phase One Findings• The focus is on issues
that affect the inner spheres (self, family, community).
• Spokesperson(s) most like self, family, and community are perceived as most credible.
Spheres of Ethnocentricity
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Phase Two Findings
Vicarious Credibility
Positive:
“They are working to have us listen”
“I would believe becausehe is one of us”
“I would do what he says because he understands
us”
“They look like they aretogether, like theyhave solidarity”
Negative:
“He is being used.”
“I would believe him moreif he was someone in
my community”
“Why use someone fromour group, do you think
we did it?
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Phase Three Anticipated Findings• A relationship between preferred learning style
and preference for delivery of crisis and emergency risk communication CERC messages.
• Vulnerable populations prefer lower literacy level CERC messages.
• Preferences for ways of receiving messages can be created for specific publics.
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Future Research
• Investigate vulnerable publics needs for communication during events of catastrophic intentional food contamination.
• Investigate preferred ways of receiving catastrophic information about intentional contamination of the food supply.
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Grant number N-00014-04-1-0659), through a grant awarded to the National Center for Food Protection and Defense at the University of Minnesota. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not represent the policy or position of the Department of Homeland Security.
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Emerging Issues• Bioterrorism
• Globalization
• Centralization
• Complexity of the food chain
• Cultural Differences
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy: Industry Impact
Tony FloodDirector, Food Safety CommunicationsInternational Food Information Council (IFIC)Washington, DC
The Third Annual DHS University Network Summit, March 2009, Washington, DC
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
International Food Information Council (IFIC)
Mission: To effectively communicate science-based information on food safety and nutrition issues to health professionals, media, educators and government officials.
Primarily supported by the food, beverage and agricultural industries.
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Consider . . .
• Intervention strategies can be used to help mitigate, reduce or even stop a process in action– Used in public health arena– Food safety examples similar to a “kill step”
• Risk communication as an intervention strategy for industry– At numerous points– During entire process
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Risk Communication is Key
• IFIC incorporates “best practices” when delivering risk-based communication messages regarding food safety– Ongoing process– Partnerships with the public– Give the public something meaningful to do
• Why not for food defense?
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
Risk Communication is Key
• Ongoing Process– Food safety is a now a priority– Food defense will gain support among policy makers– Engage the public now
• Identify and engage ALL publics– Public, private, media, thought leaders, etc.
• Strategies that focus on publics’ needs
EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY
In Closing . . .
• Risk communication should be expanded beyond an intervention strategy
• Partnerships are essential to any successful risk communication strategy
• The time is now to educate, engage and increase awareness to reassure publics’ confidence in the food supply