Reviews on common objectives and evaluation indicators for risk communication activities from 2011 to 2017

• Main Authors: Akiko Sato, Kaori Honda, Kyoko Ono, Reiko Kanda, Takehiko I. Hayashi, Yoshihito Takeda, Yoshitake Takebayashi, Tomoyuki Kobayashi, Michio Murakami
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: PeerJ Inc. 2020-08-01
• Series: PeerJ
• Subjects: Risk communication; Indicator; Evaluation
• Online Access: https://peerj.com/articles/9730.pdf

Background Risk communication is widely accepted as a significant factor for policy makers, academic researchers, and practitioners in diverse fields. However, there remains a lack of comprehensive knowledge about how risk communication is currently conducted across fields and about the way risk communication is evaluated. Methodology This study systematically searched for materials from three scholarly search engines and one journal with a single search term of “risk communication.” The eligibility assessment selected peer-reviewed articles published in English that evaluated risk communication activities. Emphasis was placed on articles published in recent years accounting for about half of the pre-selected ones. Data on field of study, intervention timing, target audience, communication type, and objectives/evaluation indicators was extracted from the articles. Patterns of objectives/evaluation indicators used in risk communication activities were compared with those of the definitions and purposes of risk communication stated by relevant organizations. Association analysis was conducted based on study fields and objectives/evaluation indicators. Results The screening process yielded 292 articles that were published between 2011 and 2017 in various fields, such as medicine, food safety, chemical substances, and disasters/emergencies. The review process showed that many activities were performed in the medical field, during non-/pre-crisis periods. Recent activities primarily targeted citizens/Non-Profit Organizations (NPOs), and was disseminated in the form of large group or mass communication. While “knowledge increase,” “change in risk perception and concern alleviation,” and “decision making and behavior change” were commonly addressed in practice, “trust-building” and “reduction in psychological distress” were rarely focused. The analysis also indicated that the medical field tends to perform risk communication at the individual or small group level, in contrast to the food safety field. Further, risk communications in the non-/pre-crisis period are more likely to aim at “changes in risk perception and concern alleviation” than those in the crisis period. Risk communications that aim at “changes in risk perception and concern alleviation” are likely to be presented in a large group or mass communication, whereas those that aim at “decision making and behavior change” are likely to be conducted at the individual or small group level. Conclusion An overview of recent activities may provide those who engage in risk communication with an opportunity to learn from practices in different fields or those conducted in different intervention timings. Devoting greater attention to trust building and reduction in psychological distress and exploring non-citizen/NPO stakeholders’ needs would be beneficial across academic and professional disciplines.