Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy - orau.gov · Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy March 19, 2009 Risk Communication Team ... • Early Recognition • Initial

EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY

Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy

March 19, 2009

Risk Communication TeamNational Center for Food Protection and Defense


Overview

Any opinions, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this broadcast are those of the NCFPD Risk Communication Project and do not represent the policy or position of the Department of Homeland Security.

• Best Practices• Key Points of Interventions• Cultural Impact• Industry Expectations


Best Practices


Intervention Points

• Early Recognition• Initial Warning

– Specific vs. General– Equivocal vs. Certain

• Targeting Messages• Ease of Reseponse


Key Elements of Message Testing: Learning Styles• Abstract

Conceptualization• Active Experimentation • Reflective Observation• Concrete Experience


Audience Perception of Risk Messages


Salmonella Outbreak Simulation: Point of Initial Warning


40

45

50

55

60

651 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106

113

120

127

134

141

148

155

162

169

176

183

190

197

204

211

218

225

232

239

246

253

260

267

274

281

288

295

302

309

316

323

330

337

344

Dia

l

Time in Seconds

Audience Perception for Entire Video


Abstract Conceptualization

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

1 4 7 1013161922252831343740434649525558616467707376

Dia

l

Time in Seconds

CDC Message: Part 1


52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

1 3 5 7 9 1113151719212325272931333537394143454749515355

Dia

l

Time in Seconds

CDC Message: Part 2

Active Experimentation


50.5

51

51.5

52

52.5

53

53.5

54

54.5

55

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

Dia

l

Time in Seconds

CDC Message: Part 3

Reflective Observation I


54555657585960

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415

Dia

l

Time in Seconds

Food Corp Representative

54

54.5

55

55.5

56

56.5

57

57.5

58

58.5

59

59.5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Dia

l

Time in Seconds

Food Corp RepresentativeReflective Observation II


45

50

55

60

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40

Dia

l

Time in Seconds

The Story of Dorothy

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

Dia

l

Time in Seconds

The Story of Dorothy

Concrete Experience


Key Points of Intervention: Modeling Food Recalls and Warnings

Matthew Seeger Ph.D.Wayne State University

Department of Communication


A Broken system

• Slow Identification• Cascading Warnings• Passive Communication• Complex Messages• No Targeting of Messages• Risk Fatigue









Communicating Risk and Crisis With Multicultural Groups: Message Testing Events of Food Contamination

Robert S. Littlefield, Ph.DRisk+Crisis Communication Project

North Dakota State University


Phase One Findings• Vulnerable publics differ in their prioritization of

crisis and emergency risk information.

• Vulnerable publics prefer spokespersons that represent their culture/community.

• Vulnerable publics identify five of the best practices as key: media accessibility; compassion, concern, and empathy; honesty, candor, and openness; tolerance for ambiguity; and self-efficacy.


Phase One Findings• The focus is on issues

that affect the inner spheres (self, family, community).

• Spokesperson(s) most like self, family, and community are perceived as most credible.

Spheres of Ethnocentricity


Phase Two Findings

Vicarious Credibility

Positive:

“They are working to have us listen”

“I would believe becausehe is one of us”

“I would do what he says because he understands

us”

“They look like they aretogether, like theyhave solidarity”

Negative:

“He is being used.”

“I would believe him moreif he was someone in

my community”

“Why use someone fromour group, do you think

we did it?


Phase Three Anticipated Findings• A relationship between preferred learning style

and preference for delivery of crisis and emergency risk communication CERC messages.

• Vulnerable populations prefer lower literacy level CERC messages.

• Preferences for ways of receiving messages can be created for specific publics.


Future Research

• Investigate vulnerable publics needs for communication during events of catastrophic intentional food contamination.

• Investigate preferred ways of receiving catastrophic information about intentional contamination of the food supply.


Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Grant number N-00014-04-1-0659), through a grant awarded to the National Center for Food Protection and Defense at the University of Minnesota. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not represent the policy or position of the Department of Homeland Security.


Emerging Issues• Bioterrorism

• Globalization

• Centralization

• Complexity of the food chain

• Cultural Differences


Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy: Industry Impact

Tony FloodDirector, Food Safety CommunicationsInternational Food Information Council (IFIC)Washington, DC

The Third Annual DHS University Network Summit, March 2009, Washington, DC


International Food Information Council (IFIC)

Mission: To effectively communicate science-based information on food safety and nutrition issues to health professionals, media, educators and government officials.

Primarily supported by the food, beverage and agricultural industries.


Consider . . .

• Intervention strategies can be used to help mitigate, reduce or even stop a process in action– Used in public health arena– Food safety examples similar to a “kill step”

• Risk communication as an intervention strategy for industry– At numerous points– During entire process


Risk Communication is Key

• IFIC incorporates “best practices” when delivering risk-based communication messages regarding food safety– Ongoing process– Partnerships with the public– Give the public something meaningful to do

• Why not for food defense?



Risk Communication is Key

• Ongoing Process– Food safety is a now a priority– Food defense will gain support among policy makers– Engage the public now

• Identify and engage ALL publics– Public, private, media, thought leaders, etc.

• Strategies that focus on publics’ needs


In Closing . . .

• Risk communication should be expanded beyond an intervention strategy

• Partnerships are essential to any successful risk communication strategy

• The time is now to educate, engage and increase awareness to reassure publics’ confidence in the food supply


Thank you . . .

Tony [email protected]

www.ific.org

mailto:[email protected]�

http://www.ific.org/�

Documents

Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy - orau.gov · Risk Communication as an Intervention Strategy March 19, 2009 Risk Communication Team ... • Early Recognition • Initial