[Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/communicating-health-research-111-five-... ]
Thanks Neil.
I'm reminded of excellent thinking by Peter Sandman on risk communication - apologies if it's already been cited - been too many messages to read all so I'm only now paying attention! It considers two dimensions - outrage and hazard. Is there sufficient or insufficient in relation to any particular topic and how can communication strategies rebalance. https://www.psandman.com/index-OM.htm
I think scientific publications may be better at describing the hazard than in considering the outrage factor. Maybe the role for good journalism and advocacy by scientists, clinicians and public can focus on the outrage through narrative. So many publications start with "3rd leading cause of...." " will be the 4th leading cause of...." which may be aiming to produce outrage, but actually just falls flat due to repetition....they can't all be?
We also have to offer policy-makers hope. That might be by suggesting cross-cutting themes and solutions as no decision-maker can handle so many demands for investment. It would also be by a greater focus on areas of disinvestment....
Thanks
Siân
HIFA profile: Sian Williams is Chief Executive Officer at the International Primary Care Respiratory Group in the UK. Professional interests: Implementation science, NCDs, primary care, respiratory health, education, evaluation, value, breaking down silos. sian.health AT gmail.com
