@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} } @article{HerzogJennyNickeletal.2020, author = {Herzog, Stefan M. and Jenny, Mirjam A. and Nickel, Christian and Ortega, Ricardo Nieves and Bingisser, Roland}, title = {Emergency department patients with weakness or fatigue}, series = {PLOS ONE}, volume = {15}, journal = {PLOS ONE}, number = {11}, publisher = {Public Library of Science}, address = {San Francisco, California, US}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0239902}, pages = {20}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Background Generalized weakness and fatigue are underexplored symptoms in emergency medicine. Triage tools often underestimate patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with these nonspecific symptoms (Nemec et al., 2010). At the same time, physicians' disease severity rating (DSR) on a scale from 0 (not sick at all) to 10 (extremely sick) predicts key outcomes in ED patients (Beglinger et al., 2015; Rohacek et al., 2015). Our goals were (1) to characterize ED patients with weakness and/or fatigue (W|F); to explore (2) to what extent physicians' DSR at triage can predict five key outcomes in ED patients with W|F; (3) how well DSR performs relative to two commonly used benchmark methods, the Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI); (4) to what extent DSR provides predictive information beyond ESI, CCI, or their linear combination, i.e., whether ESI and CCI should be used alone or in combination with DSR; and (5) to what extent ESI, CCI, or their linear combination provide predictive information beyond DSR alone, i.e., whether DSR should be used alone or in combination with ESI and / or CCI. Methods Prospective observational study between 2013-2015 (analysis in 2018-2020, study team blinded to hypothesis) conducted at a single center. We study an all-comer cohort of 3,960 patients (48\% female patients, median age = 51 years, 94\% completed 1-year follow-up). We looked at two primary outcomes (acute morbidity (Bingisser et al., 2017; Weigel et al., 2017) and all-cause 1- year mortality) and three secondary outcomes (in-hospital mortality, hospitalization and transfer to ICU). We assessed the predictive power (i.e., resolution, measured as the Area under the ROC Curve, AUC) of the scores and, using logistic regression, their linear combinations. Findings Compared to patients without W|F (n = 3,227), patients with W|F (n = 733) showed higher prevalences for all five outcomes, reported more symptoms across both genders, and received higher DSRs (median = 4; interquartile range (IQR) = 3-6 vs. median = 3; IQR = 2-5). DSR predicted all five outcomes well above chance (i.e., AUCs > similar to 0.70), similarly well for both patients with and without W|F, and as good as or better than ESI and CCI in patients with and without W|F (except for 1-year mortality where CCI performs better). For acute morbidity, hospitalization, and transfer to ICU there is clear evidence that adding DSR to ESI and/or CCI improves predictions for both patient groups; for 1-year mortality and in-hospital mortality this holds for most, but not all comparisons. Adding ESI and/or CCI to DSR generally did not improve performance or even decreased it. Conclusions The use of physicians' disease severity rating has never been investigated in patients with generalized weakness and fatigue. We show that physicians' prediction of acute morbidity, mortality, hospitalization, and transfer to ICU through their DSR is also accurate in these patients. Across all patients, DSR is less predictive of acute morbidity for female than male patients, however. Future research should investigate how emergency physicians judge their patients' clinical state at triage and how this can be improved and used in simple decision aids.}, 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} } @article{RebitschekEllermannJennyetal.2022, author = {Rebitschek, Felix G. and Ellermann, Christin and Jenny, Mirjam A. and Siegel, Nico A. and Spinner, Christian and Wagner, Gert G.}, title = {Fact boxes that inform individual decisions may contribute to a more positive evaluation of COVID-19 vaccinations at the population level}, series = {PLOS ONE}, volume = {17}, journal = {PLOS ONE}, number = {9}, publisher = {PLOS}, address = {San Francisco}, issn = {1932-6203}, doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0274186}, pages = {19}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Objective For an effective control of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic with vaccines, most people in a population need to be vaccinated. It is thus important to know how to inform the public with reference to individual preferences-while also acknowledging the societal preference to encourage vaccinations. According to the health care standard of informed decision-making, a comparison of the benefits and harms of (not) having the vaccination would be required to inform undecided and skeptical people. To test evidence-based fact boxes, an established risk communication format, and to inform their development, we investigated their contribution to knowledge and evaluations of COVID-19 vaccines. Methods We conducted four studies (1, 2, and 4 were population-wide surveys with N = 1,942 to N = 6,056): Study 1 assessed the relationship between vaccination knowledge and intentions in Germany over three months. Study 2 assessed respective information gaps and needs of the population in Germany. In parallel, an experiment (Study 3) with a mixed design (presentation formats; pre-post-comparison) assessed the effect of fact boxes on risk perceptions and fear, using a convenience sample (N = 719). Study 4 examined how effective two fact box formats are for informing vaccination intentions, with a mixed experimental design: between-subjects (presentation formats) and within-subjects (pre-post-comparison). Results Study 1 showed that vaccination knowledge and vaccination intentions increased between November 2020 and February 2021. Study 2 revealed objective information requirements and subjective information needs. Study 3 showed that the fact box format is effective in adjusting risk perceptions concerning COVID-19. Based on those results, fact boxes were revised and implemented with the help of a national health authority in Germany. Study 4 showed that simple fact boxes increase vaccination knowledge and positive evaluations in skeptics and undecideds. Conclusion Fact boxes can inform COVID-19 vaccination intentions of undecided and skeptical people without threatening societal vaccination goals of the population}, language = {en} } @article{LossBoklageJordanetal.2021, author = {Loss, Julika and Boklage, Evgeniya and Jordan, Susanne and Jenny, Mirjam A. and Weishaar, Heide and El Bcheraoui, Charbel}, title = {Risikokommunikation bei der Eind{\"a}mmung der COVID-19-Pandemie}, series = {Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz}, volume = {64}, journal = {Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz}, number = {3}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {Berlin ; Heidelberg}, issn = {1436-9990}, doi = {10.1007/s00103-021-03283-3}, pages = {294 -- 303}, year = {2021}, abstract = {Risk communication plays a central role in public health emergencies: it must enable informed decisions, promote protective or life-sustaining behaviour, and maintain trust in public institutions. In addition, uncertainties in knowledge must be named transparently; irrational fears and rumours must be refuted. Success factors for risk communication are the participation of citizens as well as the continuous recording of risk perception and risk competence in population groups. The current COVID-19 (corona virus disease 2019) pandemic poses specific challenges for risk communication. The state of knowledge on many important aspects concerning COVID-19 was and is often uncertain or preliminary, e.g. on transmission, symptoms, long-term effects and immunity. Communication is characterised by scientific language and an array of figures and statistics, which can render the content difficult to understand. Alongside the official announcements and statements by experts, COVID-19 is widely communicated on social media, spreading misinformation and speculation; this "infodemic" can complicate risk communication. Various national and international scientific projects will help tailor risk communication on COVID-19 to target groups and thereby render it more effective. These projects include explorative studies on how people deal with COVID-19-related information; the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) project, a regularly conducted online survey on risk perception and protective behaviour; and an interdisciplinary qualitative study that compares the design, implementation and effectiveness of risk communication strategies in four countries.}, language = {de} } @article{JareckiTanJenny2020, author = {Jarecki, Jana B. and Tan, Jolene H. and Jenny, Mirjam}, title = {A framework for building cognitive process models}, series = {Psychonomic bulletin \& review : a journal of the Psychonomic Society}, volume = {27}, journal = {Psychonomic bulletin \& review : a journal of the Psychonomic Society}, number = {6}, publisher = {Springer}, address = {New York, NY}, issn = {1069-9384}, doi = {10.3758/s13423-020-01747-2}, pages = {1218 -- 1229}, year = {2020}, abstract = {The termprocess modelis widely used, but rarely agreed upon. This paper proposes a framework for characterizing and building cognitive process models. Process models model not only inputs and outputs but also model the ongoing information transformations at a given level of abstraction. We argue that the following dimensions characterize process models: They have a scope that includes different levels of abstraction. They specify a hypothesized mental information transformation. They make predictions not only for the behavior of interest but also for processes. The models' predictions for the processes can be derived from the input, without reverse inference from the output data. Moreover, the presumed information transformation steps are not contradicting current knowledge of human cognitive capacities. Lastly, process models require a conceptual scope specifying levels of abstraction for the information entering the mind, the proposed mental events, and the behavior of interest. This framework can be used for refining models before testing them or after testing them empirically, and it does not rely on specific modeling paradigms. It can be a guideline for developing cognitive process models. Moreover, the framework can advance currently unresolved debates about which models belong to the category of process models.}, language = {en} }