Skip Navigation

JNCI Monographs 1999 1999(25):44-51;
© 1999 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rothman, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kiviniemi, M. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rothman, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kiviniemi, M. T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, No. 25, 44-51, 1999
© 1999 Oxford University Press

Treating People With Information: an Analysis and Review of Approaches to Communicating Health Risk Information

Alexander J. Rothman, Marc T. Kiviniemi

Affiliation of authors: Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.

Correspondence to: Alexander J. Rothman, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Elliott Hall, 75 East River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455 (e-mail: rothm001{at}umn.edu).

The communication of risk information is a fundamental aspect of nearly all health promotion interventions. However, no consensus exists regarding the most effective way to provide people with risk information. We will review and evaluate the relative merits of two approaches to risk communication. One approach relies on the presentation of numerical information regarding the probability of a health problem occurring, whereas the other relies on the presentation of information about the antecedents and consequences of a health problem. Because people have considerable difficulty understanding and using quantitative information, the effectiveness of interventions that rely solely on numerical probability information has been limited. Interventions that provide people with a broader informational context in which to think about a health problem have had greater success systematically influencing perceptions of personal risk but have several important limitations. However, before any final conclusions can be drawn regarding the relative merits of different communication strategies, investigators must agree on the specific criteria that should be used to identify an effective intervention.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
M. J. Thun, L. M. Hannan, and M. Stefanek
Risky Business: Tools to Improve Risk Communication in a Doctor's Office
J Natl Cancer Inst, June 18, 2008; 100(12): 830 - 831.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Med Decis MakingHome page
C. L. Cuite, N. D. Weinstein, K. Emmons, and G. Colditz
A Test of Numeric Formats for Communicating Risk Probabilities
Med Decis Making, June 1, 2008; 28(3): 377 - 384.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.