Environmental Risk Communication for the Clinician

PEDIATRICS ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 112 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 211-217
Author(s):  
Mark Miller ◽  
Gina Solomon

Although they are accustomed to discussing risks in the medical arena through the process of informed consent, primary care clinicians may have difficulty communicating with their patients and communities about environmental health risks. Clinicians are generally trusted and can play important roles as educators, alert practitioners, or even advocates talking about environmental health risks with individuals and groups. Communication of risk requires an understanding of how scientists and clinicians assess risk—the process of quantitative or qualitative risk assessment. Risk is never a purely scientific issue; risk is perceived differently depending on some well-understood characteristics of the hazard, the individual perceiving the risk, and the social context. Many low-income communities of color have faced and continue to face disproportionate environmental exposures and disease burdens. The issue of environmental justice can significantly affect the context of a discussion about a specific environmental risk. The essence of risk communication has been well described and requires careful evaluation of the science and the social context, honesty, listening to and partnering with the community, and a clear, compassionate team approach.

1996 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Prue Cameron

Contemporary policy responses to environmental risk increasingly endorse the need for community participation in decision making around these issues. It is suggested that this process requires a greater understanding of the social construction of environmental risk which legitimises the knowledges and experiences of community members. Environmental health risks are most commonly framed within the discourses of science and epidemiology. These scientific knowledges construct particular meanings around the risks associated with environmental issues. The 'objective and value-free' context of mechanisms, such as laboratory tests, defining safety levels and population based statistical data, locates the meanings of risk within a depersonalised and fundamentally disembodied framework. It is argued that this marginalises and disempowers the meanings, values and everyday practices through which people negotiate risks in their lives. Work in progress which examines the ways people construct meanings about the environmental health risks to which they are exposed is discussed using the case of the herbicide atrazine in Tasmania, Australia. The paper draws on data from in-depth interviews with key individuals concerned about the contamination of drinking water by this herbicide. A central theme in this analysis is the concept of embodied knowledge in the construction of meanings. The argument that the body at risk is a key site of contestation in environmental health debates is developed. This conceptualisation increases the space for community engagement and action in public policy outcomes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 369-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher A. Mundorf ◽  
Mark J. Wilson ◽  
Arti Shankar ◽  
Jeffrey K. Wickliffe ◽  
Maureen Y. Lichtveld

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-45
Author(s):  
Daniel Benamouzig ◽  
Olivier Borraz ◽  
Jean-Noël Jouzel ◽  
Danielle Salomon

The contribution of social sciences to risk assessment has often been confined to dimensions of risk perception and communication. This article relates an effort to promote knowledge from the social sciences that addresses other dimensions of risk issues. A sociological checklist produced for ANSES in France helps to identify and analyse social dimensions that should be given attention during the process of risk assessment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document