@article{McDowellPachur2020, author = {McDowell, Michelle and Pachur, Thorsten}, title = {Availability, affect, and decisions to seek information about cancer risks}, series = {Medical decision making : MDM}, volume = {40}, journal = {Medical decision making : MDM}, number = {8}, publisher = {Sage Publ.}, address = {Thousand Oaks}, issn = {0272-989X}, doi = {10.1177/0272989X20951775}, pages = {941 -- 945}, year = {2020}, abstract = {How do people decide which risks they want to get informed about? The present study examines the role of the availability and affect heuristics on these decisions. Participants (N= 100, aged 19-72 years) selected for which of 23 cancers they would like to receive an information brochure, reported the number of occurrences of each type of cancer in their social circle (availability), and rated their dread reaction to each type of cancer (affect); they also made relative judgments about which of 2 cancers was more common in Germany (judged risk). Participants tended to choose information brochures for those cancers for which they indicated a higher availability within their social networks as well as for cancers they dreaded. Mediation analyses suggested that the influence of availability and affect on information choice was only partly mediated by judged risk. The results demonstrate the operation of 2 key judgment heuristics (availability and affect), previously studied in risk perception, also in decisions about information choice. We discuss how our findings can be used to identify which risks are likely to fall from people's radar.}, language = {en} } @article{McDowellKause2021, author = {McDowell, Michelle and Kause, Astrid}, title = {Communicating uncertainties about the effects of medical interventions using different display formats}, series = {Risk analysis : an international journal}, volume = {41}, journal = {Risk analysis : an international journal}, number = {12}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {0272-4332}, doi = {10.1111/risa.13739}, pages = {2220 -- 2239}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Communicating uncertainties in scientific evidence is important to accurately reflect scientific knowledge , increase public understanding of uncertainty, and to signal transparency and honesty in reporting. While techniques have been developed to facilitate the communication of uncertainty, many have not been empirically tested, compared for communicating different types of uncertainty, or their effects on different cognitive, trust, and behavioral outcomes have not been evaluated. The present study examined how a point estimate, imprecise estimate, conflicting estimates, or a statement about the lack of evidence about treatment effects, influenced participant's responses to communications about medical evidence. For each type of uncertainty, we adapted three display formats to communicate the information: tables, bar graphs, and icon arrays. We compared participant's best estimates of treatment effects, as well as effects on recall, subjective evaluations (understandability and usefuleness), certainty perceptions, perceptions of trustworthiness of the information, and behavioral intentions. We did not find any detrimental effects from communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to a point estimate across any outcome. Furthermore, there were more favorable responses to communicating imprecision or conflicting estimates relative to lack of evidence, where participants estimated the treatment would improve outcomes by 30-50\% relative to a placebo. There were no differences across display formats, suggesting that, if well-designed, it may not matter which format is used. Future research on specific display formats or uncertainty types and with larger sample sizes would be needed to detect small effects. Implications for the communication of uncertainty are discussed.}, language = {en} } @article{EllermannMcDowellSchirrenetal.2022, author = {Ellermann, Christin and McDowell, Michelle and Schirren, Clara O. and Lindemann, Ann-Kathrin and Koch, Severine and Lohmann, Mark and Jenny, Mirjam Annina}, title = {Identifying content to improve risk assessment communications within the Risk Profile: Literature reviews and focus groups with expert and non-expert stakeholders}, series = {PLoS ONE}, volume = {17}, journal = {PLoS ONE}, edition = {4}, publisher = {Public Library of Science (PLOS)}, address = {San Francisco, California, USA}, issn = {1553-7358}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0266800}, pages = {23}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Objective To improve consumer decision making, the results of risk assessments on food, feed, consumer products or chemicals need to be communicated not only to experts but also to non-expert audiences. The present study draws on evidence from literature reviews and focus groups with diverse stakeholders to identify content to integrate into an existing risk assessment communication (Risk Profile). Methods A combination of rapid literature reviews and focus groups with experts (risk assessors (n = 15), risk managers (n = 8)), and non-experts (general public (n = 18)) were used to identify content and strategies for including information about risk assessment results in the "Risk Profile" from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Feedback from initial focus groups was used to develop communication prototypes that informed subsequent feedback rounds in an iterative process. A final prototype was validated in usability tests with experts. Results Focus group feedback and suggestions from risk assessors were largely in line with findings from the literature. Risk managers and lay persons offered similar suggestions on how to improve the existing communication of risk assessment results (e.g., including more explanatory detail, reporting probabilities for individual health impairments, and specifying risks for subgroups in additional sections). Risk managers found information about quality of evidence important to communicate, whereas people from the general public found this information less relevant. Participants from lower educational backgrounds had difficulties understanding the purpose of risk assessments. User tests found that the final prototype was appropriate and feasible to implement by risk assessors. Conclusion An iterative and evidence-based process was used to develop content to improve the communication of risk assessments to the general public while being feasible to use by risk assessors. Remaining challenges include how to communicate dose-response relationships and standardise quality of evidence ratings across disciplines.}, language = {en} } @misc{EllermannMcDowellSchirrenetal.2022, author = {Ellermann, Christin and McDowell, Michelle and Schirren, Clara O. and Lindemann, Ann-Kathrin and Koch, Severine and Lohmann, Mark and Jenny, Mirjam Annina}, title = {Identifying content to improve risk assessment communications within the Risk Profile: Literature reviews and focus groups with expert and non-expert stakeholders}, series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Gesundheitswissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Gesundheitswissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {3}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-56732}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-567321}, pages = {23}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Objective To improve consumer decision making, the results of risk assessments on food, feed, consumer products or chemicals need to be communicated not only to experts but also to non-expert audiences. The present study draws on evidence from literature reviews and focus groups with diverse stakeholders to identify content to integrate into an existing risk assessment communication (Risk Profile). Methods A combination of rapid literature reviews and focus groups with experts (risk assessors (n = 15), risk managers (n = 8)), and non-experts (general public (n = 18)) were used to identify content and strategies for including information about risk assessment results in the "Risk Profile" from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. Feedback from initial focus groups was used to develop communication prototypes that informed subsequent feedback rounds in an iterative process. A final prototype was validated in usability tests with experts. Results Focus group feedback and suggestions from risk assessors were largely in line with findings from the literature. Risk managers and lay persons offered similar suggestions on how to improve the existing communication of risk assessment results (e.g., including more explanatory detail, reporting probabilities for individual health impairments, and specifying risks for subgroups in additional sections). Risk managers found information about quality of evidence important to communicate, whereas people from the general public found this information less relevant. Participants from lower educational backgrounds had difficulties understanding the purpose of risk assessments. User tests found that the final prototype was appropriate and feasible to implement by risk assessors. Conclusion An iterative and evidence-based process was used to develop content to improve the communication of risk assessments to the general public while being feasible to use by risk assessors. Remaining challenges include how to communicate dose-response relationships and standardise quality of evidence ratings across disciplines.}, language = {en} }