Recommendations
for Improving the Effectiveness of Health Risk
Communication
From an analysis of the case studies,
members of the Subcommittee were able to identify a
number of areas for improvement among the agencies in
their attempts to design and implement effective health
risk communication campaigns. The following
recommendations emphasize the need for both short- and
long-term actions to improve health risk communication
planning and practice.
Area One for
Improvement:
Increased understanding of the health
risk communication process and its importance in
achieving agency mission, goals, and communication
objectives.
Specific Recommendation:
PHS agencies should consider
developing a focus specific to health risk communication.
One approach would be to form an office or designated
group within each agency to help identify and clarify the
role of health risk communication beyond its traditional
function of information dissemination. A major task of
the office/group would be to create an awareness of
health risk communication as an integral agency
component, interrelated to other functional areas and
well established within the larger planning/budget
process. Developing a systematic approach to health risk
communication process planning and management can enhance
an agency's awareness and recognition level.
Area Two for
Improvement:
Lack of a systematic approach to
planning leads to poor conceptualization and execution in
the preparation, production, and dissemination of health
risk communication messages, materials, and campaigns.
Specific Recommendation:
Each PHS agency should develop a set
of generally accepted practices or guidelines for
effective health risk communication. Agencies should
develop their own set of generally accepted practices,
perhaps using the EPA Cardinal Rules of Risk
Communication or through organizing a consensus
conference of communication experts and practitioners to
set standards for health risk communication. Agencies
should consider using the case studies in this report to
provide a starting point for identifying guidelines for
their own health risk communication initiatives and
activities. Some of the basic principles contained in the
case studies for improving health risk communications
include the following:
- Ongoing communication,
information dissemination, and followup build
public trust and support for risk communication
activities.
- Involving the audience early
in communication, planning, and problem-solving
processes enhances the efficacy and acceptability
of the intended message.
- Active listening and
recognition of verbal/nonverbal cues build
credibility and empower the audience to create
its own agenda.
- Releasing information that is
timely, accurate, and understandable helps to
allay some of the public's concerns and fears.
- Communication directed at
increasing cooperation and coordination among
individuals, groups, and agencies reduces
competing interests of political and social
groups that can inhibit communication. (5)
Area Three for
Improvement:
Lack of a well-organized and
broad-based approach for increasing awareness and
visibility of health risk communication issues and trends
within/between Federal agencies.
Specific Recommendation:
The Subcommittee on Risk Communication
and Education, in coordination with other PHS components,
should undertake an interagency initiative aimed at
increasing awareness and visibility of health risk
communication issues and trends within and between PHS
agencies. Possible examples of this initiative could
include health risk communication workshops and focus
groups jointly organized and sponsored by the
Subcommittee and the Office of the Assistant Secretary
for Health (OASH). The proposed initiatives provide
several key benefits, including the following:
- Providing a public forum for
the discussion and debate of current health risk
communication issues and trends.
- Promoting broader
dissemination of research to health communication
practitioners within the public health community.
- Covering developments in
current health risk communication trends,
priorities, and practices.
- Improving coordination in
linking health risk communication expertise,
information, and resources among Federal
agencies.
Area Four for
Improvement:
The Subcommittee's analysis of the
case studies described in this report showed that only 3
of the 10 agencies conducted any type of formal outcome
and impact evaluation. The remainder of the evaluations
ranged from simple implementation measures to no
evaluation at all. Not having this type of data limited
the agencies' ability to judge the quality and worth of
their communication activities and products. Also limited
were judgments made in relation to statements of intended
outcomes.
Specific Recommendation:
Each PHS agency should develop a set
of generally accepted practices or guidelines for
effective evaluation of communication activities and
products. Agencies should become familiar with evaluation
standards and practices, perhaps through hiring
evaluation specialists or by developing similar expertise
among current staff members. Clear objectives should be
developed for each health risk communication effort and
tracked to the activity's completion.
- PHS agencies identified some
specific implementation strategies the EHPC might
consider pursuing to address the four major
recommendations. PHS actions to implement the
recommendations are found in Appendix 3.
Implementation strategies common to PHS agencies
emerged in the following five areas: (1) program
development; (2) building partnerships; (3)
developing training; (4) expanding information
technologies; and (5) conducting research and
evaluation.
ENDNOTES
(5) A health
communication model, similar to a model developed by the
National Cancer Institute (NCI), is presented for the
consideration of PHS agencies in Appendix 2. The
Subcommittee intends the model to be suggestive, not
prescriptive, of the design and delivery of health risk
communication messages.
|