uncertainty of other risks about which less is known. In particular, some workshop participants suggested that provision for exemptions for mandatory immunizations in all states on philosophical grounds would improve vaccine risk communication efforts and would not seriously undermine efforts to raise coverage levels.

Introduction and Background

Health risk communication has traditionally consisted of messages designed to encourage behavior that reduces individual and societal risks (e.g., smoking cessation and seat-belt use). Increasingly, risk communication, including health risk communication, is seen as an interactive process of the exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions (National Research Council, 1989). Risk communication has a 20-year history as a field of study (Fischhoff, 1995), arising initially out of controversies over environmental issues between, for example, residents of a community and a company building a potentially polluting plant nearby. Although health risk communication has been an active area of research and practice for several decades, the science and practice of vaccine risk communication are not yet well developed. Much of the complexity is due to a situation, as with any intervention in preventive medicine, in which healthy individuals are exposed to a medication or medical test in the interest of unknown future benefits. The purpose of the workshop summarized in this report was to allow for discussion among experts in risk communication theory and practice in general and those concerned with vaccine risk communication issues.

According to the 1989 NRC report Improving Risk Communication, risk communication "can be considered successful only to the extent that it, first, improves or increases the base of accurate information used by decision makers, be they government officials, industry managers, or individual citizens and, second, satisfies those involved that they are adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge" (National Research Council, 1989, p. 8). The benefits of good risk communication include improved decisionmaking, both individually and collectively, and the development of productive working relationships among diverse interest groups.1

Risk communication can serve one or more of the following purposes: (1) advocacy, to persuade people to take a particular action; (2) education, to give people enough information so that they can make their own decisions effectively;

1  

 Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Research Council, 1996) was published after the workshop, but it is also relevant for these discussions.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 3
--> uncertainty of other risks about which less is known. In particular, some workshop participants suggested that provision for exemptions for mandatory immunizations in all states on philosophical grounds would improve vaccine risk communication efforts and would not seriously undermine efforts to raise coverage levels. Introduction and Background Health risk communication has traditionally consisted of messages designed to encourage behavior that reduces individual and societal risks (e.g., smoking cessation and seat-belt use). Increasingly, risk communication, including health risk communication, is seen as an interactive process of the exchange of information and opinion among individuals, groups, and institutions (National Research Council, 1989). Risk communication has a 20-year history as a field of study (Fischhoff, 1995), arising initially out of controversies over environmental issues between, for example, residents of a community and a company building a potentially polluting plant nearby. Although health risk communication has been an active area of research and practice for several decades, the science and practice of vaccine risk communication are not yet well developed. Much of the complexity is due to a situation, as with any intervention in preventive medicine, in which healthy individuals are exposed to a medication or medical test in the interest of unknown future benefits. The purpose of the workshop summarized in this report was to allow for discussion among experts in risk communication theory and practice in general and those concerned with vaccine risk communication issues. According to the 1989 NRC report Improving Risk Communication, risk communication "can be considered successful only to the extent that it, first, improves or increases the base of accurate information used by decision makers, be they government officials, industry managers, or individual citizens and, second, satisfies those involved that they are adequately informed within the limits of available knowledge" (National Research Council, 1989, p. 8). The benefits of good risk communication include improved decisionmaking, both individually and collectively, and the development of productive working relationships among diverse interest groups.1 Risk communication can serve one or more of the following purposes: (1) advocacy, to persuade people to take a particular action; (2) education, to give people enough information so that they can make their own decisions effectively; 1    Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society (National Research Council, 1996) was published after the workshop, but it is also relevant for these discussions.