Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36100396›Full record

ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2022

Information needs, approaches, and case studies in human health risk communication.

Michael Gochfeld

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Risk Perception and Communication, Plugged-In: Fifty Years of Process.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026
    Article
  2. Risk management during times of health uncertainty in Spain: A qualitative analysis of ethical challenges.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Article
  3. Information needs, approaches, and case studies in human health risk communication.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2022
    Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Michael GochfeldRutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences, Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute and Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), Piscataway, New Jersey, USA.
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute · US

Funding

Translational Research Support CoreP30ES005022 · NIEHS · UNIV OF MED/DENT NJ-R W JOHNSON MED SCH · PI PANOS G. GEORGOPOULOS · 1988 to 2026
$47.4M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES005022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article uses ten case studies to illustrate the information needs, various communication approaches, and the communicator's role in explaining environmental health risks from a variety of hazards, to a variety of audiences, over time frames from days to years, using in person consultation, lectures, zooms, and email formats. Events often had a long history before the communication began and may have had a long tail afterward. Audiences may be public officials, companies, workers, communities, or individuals. Each individual may have their own understanding or mental model regarding the hazard, exposure, and risk. The communicator's role or intention may be to reassure an audience that has unrealistic exaggerated concerns or fears or to protect a client if the fears are realistic. Or it may be altruistic to inform a complacent audience to take the risks it faces more seriously. Although risk assessment research has advanced the techniques for communicating abstruse probabilities to audiences with low numeracy, in my experience, audiences are unimpressed by precise-sounding probability numbers, and are more interested in whether exposure is occurring or may occur and how to stop it. Often audiences have reason to be outraged and may be more concerned about punishing wrong doers than about the hazard itself, particularly when the exposure is past and cannot be undone. Thus, there is a difference between discussing the riskiness of a situation (risk communication) and what you are going to do about the situation (risk management). Risk communication is successful when the audience responds as intended, calming down or taking action. These case studies are drawn from a large number of risk communication experiences that I and my Rutgers colleagues have engaged in over the past four decades. Through the 20th century, New Jersey was the most densely industrialized State in United States. New Jersey experienced growth of the chemical and petrochemical industries and the unfortunately profligate disposal of toxic wastes. Having the most Superfund sites of any state is a dubious distinction, but New Jersey also has the most experience in evaluating and responding to these hazards.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthRisk ManagementCommunicationHazardous SubstancesHumansNew JerseyRisk AssessmentUnited StatesHazardous Substancesasbestos riskscancer riskscredibilitymental modelsradiation risksrisk perception

Identifiers

PMID36100396
PMCPMC10087356
OpenAlexW4295756392

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.