ArticleBMC public health2025
Cumulative risk communication: comparing practitioner perspectives with public interpretation and response.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCumulative risk assessment has become a key framework for understanding how multiple environmental and public health stressors interact, yet little is known about how these risks are communicated to the public. This study examined both professional practices and public responses to cumulative risk communication.
methodsFifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with federal risk communicators, and a nationally representative online survey of 2,531 U.S. adults was fielded. The survey included an experiment comparing responses to cumulative versus single-risk messages. Qualitative data from interviews were thematically analyzed, and survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and experimental contrasts.
resultsMost practitioners acknowledged the importance of cumulative risk but reported rarely communicating it, citing time pressures, institutional silos, and perceived audience cognitive limitations as barriers. Public survey results contradicted this latter assumption: a majority of respondents preferred messages that addressed multiple, interacting risks, and experimental data showed no significant differences in comprehension, prioritization, or behavioral intentions between cumulative and single-risk messages.
conclusionsFindings reveal a disconnect between practitioner assumptions and public responses to cumulative risk communication. Closing this gap will require organizational support, accessible communication tools, and continued research to align professional practice with public preferences and capabilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.