Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35380241›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2022

[Risk communication of policy advising scientific organisations: a thematic outline using the example of the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment].

Fabian Brand, Leonie Dendler, Suzan Fiack, Annett Schulze, Gaby-Fleur Böl

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Fabian BrandAbteilung Risikokommunikation, Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Deutschland. fabian.brand@bfr.bund.de.
Leonie DendlerAbteilung Risikokommunikation, Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Deutschland.
Suzan FiackAbteilung Risikokommunikation, Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Deutschland.
Annett SchulzeAbteilung Risikokommunikation, Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Deutschland.
Gaby-Fleur BölAbteilung Risikokommunikation, Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Str. 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regulatory scientific agencies, such as the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), are confronted with various challenges in their science-based risk communication. On the one hand, the communication of health risks is becoming increasingly complex and, accordingly, more demanding, which is why - among other things - questions about the health literacy of consumers and target group-oriented risk communication are gaining importance. On the other hand, the outputs of regulatory scientific agencies are increasingly exposed to politicisation and public criticism, which increases the relevance of questions about the objectivity and trustworthiness of expert opinion, risk assessment, and official statements, as well as the legitimacy and reputation of such organisations. This is further intensified by the emergence of new social media actors who produce and publish their own information and communication materials. The misinformation, disinformation and malinformation consequently distributed in this context represent another challenge, which is closely related to questions of adequate communication of health risks and of stabilising legitimacy, reputation and trustworthiness.The article discusses various approaches to solving these problems, including the optimization and visual enhancement of health information, enabling social participation as well as embedding these measures in strategic stakeholder and reputation management. The article concludes with a call for a more open discussion of inherent dilemmas.

Indexed as

Academies and InstitutesCommunicationGermanyHumansPolicyRisk AssessmentDisinformationHealth literacyParticipationRegulatory scienceRisk analysis

Identifiers

PMID35380241
PMCPMC8980784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.