Autonomy and reactions to health-risk information

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 855-872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louisa Jane Pavey ◽  
Paul Sparks
Keyword(s):  
Risk Analysis ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 841-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Lindbladh ◽  
Carl Hampus Lyttkens

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 523-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Lithopoulos ◽  
Rebecca L. Bassett-Gunter ◽  
Kathleen A. Martin Ginis ◽  
Amy E. Latimer-Cheung

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 136-153 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Mason ◽  
Sue Boase ◽  
Theresa Marteau ◽  
Ann Louise Kinmonth ◽  
Theresa Dahm ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Siv Hilde Berg ◽  
Marie Therese Shortt ◽  
Henriette Thune ◽  
Jo Røislien ◽  
Jane K. O’Hara ◽  
...  

Abstract BackgroundA worldwide pandemic of a new and unknown virus is characterised by scientific uncertainty. Yet, health authorities still need to communicate complex health risk information to the public – despite this uncertainty. The mental models approach to risk communication describes how people perceive and make decisions regarding complex risks, with the aim of identifying decision-relevant information that can be targeted in risk communication interventions. This study used COVID-19 as a case to explore how people make sense of scientific information and apply it to their lives and behaviour using the concept of mental models.MethodsThis qualitative study included 15 male and female participants of different ages and from different geographical regions in Norway, occupational areas and with different education levels. The participants were interviewed individually, and the interview data analysed via directed content analysis, with predetermined themes and codes derived the Norwegian Institute of Public Health’s official website. Materials in the interview data not represented by deductive codes were coded inductively. The participants’ perceptions and behaviours related to health risk information were analysed across three themes: virus transmission, exposure to risk and consequences of COVID-19. ResultsThe results imply that people put different meanings to the medical and scientific words used by experts to explain the pandemic, e.g. virus transmission and the reproduction number. And while some people expressed the need to comprehend why certain behavior and activities involve a high risk, others preferred simple, clear messages focusing on what to do and how to protect themselves. Similarly, information about health consequences caused panic for some and awareness for others. ConclusionThere is no one-size fits all to public health risk communication, and empowering people with decision-relevant information necessitates targeted and balanced risk communication.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document