RISK COMMUNICATION BIBLIOGRAPY CODING SYSTEM

Note that category names are given first, with additional clarifying
information sometimes appearing in brackets. The category codes include
the text in parenthesis (if any is given), but not clarifying text
occasionally present in brackets.

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Publication type                  | Content of risk message           |
|                                   |                                   |
| \[The code assigned is the        | 0\. Content (general)             |
| highest that describes the        |                                   |
| publication.\]                    | 1\. Cause/source/communicability  |
|                                   | of risk/mode of transmission      |
| 1\. Discussion                    |                                   |
|                                   | 2\. Communication style           |
| 2\. Review                        |                                   |
|                                   | 3\. Definition of hazard          |
| 3\. Case study                    |                                   |
|                                   | 4\. Expense of hazard             |
| 4\. Empirical                     |                                   |
|                                   | 5\. Likelihood-absolute           |
| 5\. Intervention                  |                                   |
|                                   | 6\. Likelihood-comparative        |
| Focus                             | (across people or hazards)        |
|                                   |                                   |
| \[The code assigned indicates the | 7\. Possible health outcomes      |
| coder\'s judgment as to the issue |                                   |
| or issues most emphasized.        | 8\. Possible psychosocial         |
| Sometimes several of these topics | outcomes                          |
| receive detailed attention in an  |                                   |
| article. A maximum of three focus | 9\. Preventability of             |
| codes were assigned to each       | hazard/personal control           |
| article. If more than three       |                                   |
| topics received emphasis the code | 10\. Risk factors (exposure       |
| "11.Multiple" was used.\]         | levels, blood pressure, genetic   |
|                                   | risk)                             |
| 1\. Communicator                  |                                   |
|                                   | 11\. Severity of outcome          |
| 2\. Audience                      |                                   |
|                                   | 12\. Time course of hazard        |
| 3\. Setting                       |                                   |
|                                   | 13\. Treatability of hazard       |
| 4\. Channel                       | consequences                      |
|                                   |                                   |
| 5\. Content                       | 14\. Other                        |
|                                   |                                   |
| 6\. Format                        | 15\. Costs/barriers/losses        |
|                                   |                                   |
| 7\. Outcome                       | 16\. Benefits/gains               |
|                                   |                                   |
| 8\. Measurement/evaluation        | 17\. Skill building/instructions  |
|                                   |                                   |
| 9\. Risk perception/comprehension | 18\. Reminder                     |
|                                   |                                   |
| 10\. Decision aid                 | 19\. General information about    |
|                                   | hazard                            |
| 11\. Multiple                     |                                   |
|                                   | 20\. General information about    |
| 12\. General                      | recommended action                |
|                                   |                                   |
| # Communicator                    | 21\. Test results                 |
|                                   |                                   |
| 0\. Communicator (general)        | 22\. Personalized information     |
|                                   |                                   |
| 1\. Authority figure (non-expert) | # Form of risk information        |
|                                   |                                   |
| 2\.                               | 0\. Format (general)              |
| Business/corporation/commercial   |                                   |
| group                             | 1\. Decision aid                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| 3\. Celebrity                     | 2\. Graphical display             |
|                                   |                                   |
| 4\. Expert/researcher/scientist   | 3\. Interactive                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| 5\. Governmental organization     | 4\. Text-numerical                |
| (e.g., NCI)                       |                                   |
|                                   | 5\. Text-verbal                   |
| 6\. Investigator/experimenter     |                                   |
|                                   | 6\. Other                         |
| 7\. Health professional/worker in |                                   |
| health care setting               | 7\. Oral/spoken                   |
|                                   |                                   |
| 8\. Non-governmental organization | #                                 |
| (e.g., Am. Lung Assoc.)           |                                   |
|                                   | # Outcomes                        |
| 9\. Parent                        |                                   |
|                                   | 0\. Outcomes (general)            |
| 10\. Patient/peer/community       |                                   |
| member (affected)                 | 1\. Attitude                      |
|                                   |                                   |
| 11\. Peer/community member (not   | 2\. Comprehension of message      |
| affected)                         |                                   |
|                                   | 3\. Knowledge                     |
| 12\. Unspecified                  |                                   |
|                                   | 4\. Communicator-Audience         |
| 13\. Other                        | relationship (e.g., trust)        |
|                                   |                                   |
| 14\. Media                        | 5\. Psychological                 |
|                                   | dist                              |
| # Audience role                   | ress/affect/concern/preoccupation |
|                                   |                                   |
| 0\. Audience role (general)       | 6\. Recall of message             |
|                                   |                                   |
| 1\. Health/safety professional    | 7\. Risk perception-likelihood    |
|                                   |                                   |
| 2\. Child/Pre-teen                | 8\. Risk perception-severity      |
|                                   |                                   |
| 3\. Teen                          | 9\. Risk perception-other         |
|                                   | attribute of risk                 |
| 4\. College student/Graduate      |                                   |
| student                           | 10\. Satisfaction/communication   |
|                                   | appraisal                         |
| 5\. Adult                         |                                   |
|                                   | 11\. Actual information seeking   |
| 6\. Parent or prospective parent  | behavior                          |
|                                   |                                   |
| 7\. Senior citizen                | 12\. Actual preventive health     |
|                                   | behavior/risky behavior           |
| 8\. At risk/exposed-child or teen |                                   |
|                                   | 13\. Actual testing/screening     |
| 9\. At risk/exposed-adult         |                                   |
|                                   | 14\. Actual treatment behavior    |
| 10\. At risk/exposed-parent of    |                                   |
| child                             | 15\. Actual other behavior (e.g., |
|                                   | activism)                         |
| 11\. At risk/exposed-senior       |                                   |
| citizen                           | 16\. Intended information seeking |
|                                   | behavior                          |
| 12\. Ill-child                    |                                   |
|                                   | 17\. Intended preventive health   |
| 13\. Ill-adult                    | behavior/risky behavior           |
|                                   |                                   |
| 14\. Ill-parent of ill child      | 18\. Intended testing/screening   |
|                                   |                                   |
| 15\. Ill-senior citizen           | 19\. Intended treatment behavior  |
|                                   |                                   |
| 16\. General public               | 20\. Intended other behavior      |
|                                   | (e.g., activism)                  |
| 17\. Other                        |                                   |
|                                   | 21\. Other                        |
| 20\. Patient (general)            |                                   |
|                                   | 22\. Perceptions of recommended   |
| 21\. Other professionals and      | action/treatment                  |
| experts                           |                                   |
|                                   | 23\. Perceptions of               |
| # Audience gender                 | efficacy/control                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| 1\. Female                        | 24\. Community or public response |
|                                   |                                   |
| 2\. Male                          | 25\. Policy/regulation changes    |
|                                   |                                   |
| **[Audience                       | 26\. Corporate response           |
| ethnicity]{.underline}**          |                                   |
|                                   | 27\. Information                  |
| 1\. African-American              | processing/decision-making        |
|                                   | process                           |
| 2\. Asian                         |                                   |
|                                   | 28\. Information/communication    |
| 3\. Caucasian                     | preferences                       |
|                                   |                                   |
| 4\. Hispanic                      | # Hazard                          |
|                                   |                                   |
| 5\. Native American               | 0\. Hazard (general)              |
|                                   |                                   |
| 6\. Mixed/varied/multiple         | 1\. Alcohol                       |
|                                   |                                   |
| 7\. Other                         | 2\. Arthritis                     |
|                                   |                                   |
| # Setting                         | 3\. Asthma/Emphysema/Chronic lung |
|                                   | disease                           |
| 0\. Setting (general)             |                                   |
|                                   | 4\. Automobile safety             |
| 1\. Armed Forces                  |                                   |
|                                   | 5\. Birth defects                 |
| 2\. community meeting/community   |                                   |
| group                             | 6\. 0 Cancer                      |
|                                   |                                   |
| 3\. Focus group/small group       | \[Note: If a specific type of     |
|                                   | cancer was coded, the general     |
| 4\. General community             | cancer code 6. 0 was also         |
|                                   | assigned to the publication.\]    |
| 5\. Health care setting           |                                   |
|                                   | 6\. 1 Breast cancer               |
| 6\. Laboratory                    |                                   |
|                                   | 6\. 2 Cervical cancer             |
| 7\. Prison                        |                                   |
|                                   | 6\. 3 Ovarian cancer              |
| 8\. Educational setting: school   |                                   |
| or university                     | 6\. 4 Prostate cancer             |
|                                   |                                   |
| 9\. Workplace                     | 6\. 5 Skin cancer                 |
|                                   |                                   |
| 10\. Other                        | 6\. 9 Lung cancer                 |
|                                   |                                   |
| 11\. Home                         | 6.10 Pancreatic cancer            |
|                                   |                                   |
| # Channels of risk communication  | 6.11 Bladder cancer               |
|                                   |                                   |
| 0\. Channels (general)            | 6.12 Colon cancer                 |
|                                   |                                   |
| 1\. Computer program              | 6.13 Other cancer                 |
| (non-internet)                    |                                   |
|                                   | 7\. Diabetes                      |
| 2\. Internet (listserves, web     |                                   |
| pages)                            | 8\. Drug abuse                    |
|                                   |                                   |
| 3\. Lecture                       | 9\. Pollutants/chemical exposure  |
|                                   |                                   |
| 4\. One-on-one (face-to-face)     | 10\. Other environmental          |
|                                   | (flooding, climate change/not     |
| 5\. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact  | pollutants)                       |
| sheets, handouts, or              |                                   |
| questionnaires                    | 11\. HIV/AIDS/STDs                |
|                                   |                                   |
| 6\. Print media (newspaper or     | 12\. Other infectious diseases    |
| magazine)                         | (e.g., Lyme disease)              |
|                                   |                                   |
| 7\. Radio                         | 13\. Hypertension/heart           |
|                                   | disease/stroke                    |
| 8\. Small groups/focus groups     |                                   |
|                                   | 14\. Hypothetical risk            |
| 9\. Telephone                     |                                   |
|                                   | 15\. Injury/safety (non-auto)     |
| 10\. TV                           |                                   |
|                                   | 16\. Radiation (radon, sun        |
| 11\. Video                        | exposure, x-ray)                  |
|                                   |                                   |
| 12\. Other                        | 17\. Smoking                      |
|                                   |                                   |
| 21\. Letter                       | 18\. Multiple (greater than 5)    |
|                                   |                                   |
| 22\. Community meetings/community | 19\. General, unspecified         |
| groups                            |                                   |
|                                   | 20\. Other                        |
| 23\. Audiotape                    |                                   |
|                                   | 21\. Dental issues                |
| 24\. Product label/packaging      |                                   |
|                                   | 22\. Treatment related risks      |
| 26\. Media-general                |                                   |
|                                   | 23\. Food related risks           |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 24\. Menopause                    |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | # Methodological issues           |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 1\. Evaluation criteria (how to   |
|                                   | determine effectiveness of risk   |
|                                   | communication)                    |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 2\. Measurement (studies of       |
|                                   | different response formats)       |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | 3\. Other                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**Title**: Health Risk Communicator\
**Publisher**: Subcommittee on Risk Communication and Education;\
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services\
**Editor**: Tinker, Tim; Lum, Max\
**Mission**: Periodical focusing on health risk communication
principles, practices, and standards

**Author**: Adams, W.C.\
**Year**: 1992/1993\
**Title**: The role of media relations in risk communication\
**Journal**: Public Relations Quarterly\
**Volume**: 37\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 28-32\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the importance of the media in risk
communication and how best to interact with the media.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Adelswaerd, Viveka; Sachs, Lisbeth\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: The meaning of 6.8: Numeracy and normality in health
information talks\
**Journal**: Social Science and Medicine\
**Volume**: 43\
**Issue**: 8\
**Pages**: 1179-1188\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines patients\' responses to and comprehension
of numerically-presented test results.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 2. Male\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
21. Test results\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke

**Author**: Alexander, N.E.; Ross, J.; Sumner, W.; Nease, R.F.Jr.;
Littenberg, B.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: The effect of an educational intervention on the perceived
risk of breast cancer\
**Journal**: Journal of General Internal Medicine\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 92-97\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of a physician intervention
program on women\'s perceived risk of breast cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Arkin, Elaine B.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Cancer risk communication: What we know\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 182-185\
**Summary Sentence**: Outlines guidelines for \"best practices\" in
cancer risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 12. General\
**Communicator**: 0. Communicator (general)\
**Audience Role**: 0. Audience role (general)\
**Channels of risk communication**: 0. Channels (general)\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Form of risk information**: 0. Format (general)\
**Outcomes**: 0. Outcomes (general)\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Aspinwall, Lisa G.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Persuasion for the purpose of cancer risk reduction:
Understanding responses to risk communications\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 88-93\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the factors that affect responses to
risk messages over time and their implications for risk communication
research\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
6. Recall of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Atkyns, Robert L.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Adolescent information acquisition, locus of control,
lifestyle and substance abuse: A social market\
segmentation for health communication effectiveness **University**:
Temple U, PA, USA\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 47(8-A), Feb 1987,
2782.\
**Thesis Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: Atman, C. J.; Bostrom, A.; Fischhoff, B.; Morgan, M. G.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Designing risk communications: Completing and correcting
mental models of hazardous processes, Part I\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 779-788\
**Summary Sentence**: Applies a mental model approach to communicating
the risk from radon.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 12. Unspecified\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
6. Recall of message\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer\
16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Atterstam, I.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Media and risk communication\
**Journal**: Toxicology Letters\
**Volume**: 82-83\
**Pages**: 211-213\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the media\'s role in risk communication
and how media reports affect public knowledge about and comprehension of
risk.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Avis, N. E.; Smith, K. W.; McKinlay, J. B.\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Accuracy of perceptions of heart attack risk: What influences
perceptions and can they be changed?\
**Journal**: American Journal of Public Health\
**Volume**: 79\
**Issue**: 12\
**Pages**: 1608-1612\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the relationships of demographics,
perceived health status, and risk factors with perceived heart attack
risk, as well as the effect of health risk appraisal feedback on
perceived risk and behavior.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke

**Author**: Babrow, Austin S.; Kasch, Chris R.; Ford, Leigh A.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: The many meanings of uncertainty in illness: Toward a
systematic accounting\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 1-23\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews several perspectives on the meaning of
uncertainty in illness and discusses areas for future research on
uncertainty.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
4. Channel\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Baker, F.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Risk communication about environmental hazards\
**Journal**: Journal of Public Health Policy\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 341-359\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews previous literature regarding
environmental risk communication and advises how to implement a risk
communication program.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 12. General\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Ball, L. K.; Evans, G.; Bostrom, A.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Risky business: Challenges in vaccine risk communication\
**Journal**: Pediatrics\
**Volume**: 101\
**Issue**: 3 Pt 1\
**Pages**: 453-458\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses challenges facing pediatricians and
government policymakers concerning how best to communicate vaccine
options and risks to parents.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel 5. Content 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 2. Internet (listserves, web pages)\
4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
15. Costs/barriers/losses\
16. Benefits/gains\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge 9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior 21. Other\
**Hazard**: 20. Other 22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Banks, S. M.; Salovey, P.; Greener, S.; Rothman, A. J.;
Moyer, A.; Beauvais, J.; Epel, E.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: The effects of message framing on mammography utilization\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 178-184\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares the use of gain-framed versus loss-framed
messages for persuading women to get mammography screenings.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
13. Actual testing/screening\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Baty, Bonnie Jeanne; Venne, Vickie L.; McDonald, Jamie;
Croyle, Robert T.; Halls, Corinne; Nash, Jean E.; Botkin, Jeffrey R.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: BRCA1 testing: Genetic counseling protocol development and
counseling issues\
**Journal**: Journal of Genetic Counseling\
**Volume**: 6\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 223-244\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents and discusses protocols for BRCA1
counseling.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
14. Other\
15. Costs/barriers/losses\
19. General information about hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer\
6. 3 Ovarian cancer

**Author**: Bell, Robert A.; Cholerton, Matthew; Davison, Veronica;
Fraczek, Kevin E.; Lauter, Heather\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Making health communication self-funding: Effectiveness of
pregiving in an AIDS fundraising/education campaign\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 8\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 331-352\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of amount of information
and self- relevance on donations during a door-to-door AIDS fundraiser.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
19. General information about hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Benichou, J.; Gail, M. H.; Mulvihill, J. J.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Graphs to estimate an individualized risk of breast cancer\
**Journal**: Journal of Clinical Oncology\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 103-110\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents graphs derived from the Gail model to
estimate the individualized risk of breast cancer for use in screening
communications.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 3. Caucasian\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Benjamin, S.L.; Belluck, D.A.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Risk feedback: An important step in risk communication\
**Journal**: American Water Works Association Journal\
**Volume**: 82\
**Issue**: 11\
**Pages**: 50-55\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the importance of interactive
communication between government agencies and the public regarding
environmental contaminants.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Bental, T.; Paran, E.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Increasing public awareness of the risk of cardiovascular
disease using \'health activists\' in a community health project in
Israel: A feasibility study\
**Journal**: Journal of Human Hypertension\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 356-361\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of intensive training in
health topics and communication skills on health activists\' knowledge,
attitudes, and preventive health behavior.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 3. Lecture\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
14. Other\
17. Skill building/instructions\
19. General information about hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke

**Author**: Binney, Stephen E.; Mason, Robert; Martsolf, Steven W.;
Detweiler, John H.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Credibility, public trust, and the transport of radioactive
waste through local communities\
**Journal**: Environment and Behavior\
**Volume**: 28\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 283-301\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes a survey of 28 community leaders who
live along a planned radioactive waste transport route about their risk
perceptions and their trust of the US Department of Energy.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 9. Telephone\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Black, W. C.; Nease, R. F., Jr.; Tosteson, A. N.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Perceptions of breast cancer risk and screening effectiveness
in women younger than 50 years of age\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute\
**Volume**: 87\
**Issue**: 10\
**Pages**: 720-731\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines perceptions of personal breast cancer
risk of women between 40 and 50.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Blanchard, Renee Denise\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Risk communication and individual response: Impact of 1990
revised earthquake probabilities for the San Francisco Bay Area\
**University**: U Colorado, Boulder, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 54(2-A), Aug 1993,
636.\
**Publication type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: Block, Lauren G.; Keller, Punam Anand\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Beyond protection motivation: An integrative theory of health
appeals\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 28\
**Issue**: 17\
**Pages**: 1584-1608\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines effects of the relevance and severity of
a safe-sex risk communication on women\'s thoughts, fears, and intended
condom use.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
17. Other\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
11. Severity of outcome\
14. Other\
17. Skill building/instructions\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
8. Risk perception-severity\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
23. Perceptions of efficacy/control\
27. Information processing/decision-making process\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Bogardus, Sidney T., Jr.; Holmboe, Eric; Jekel, James F.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Perils, pitfalls, and possibilities in talking about medical
risk\
**Journal**: Journal of the American Medical Association\
**Volume**: 281\
**Issue**: 11\
**Pages**: 1037-1041\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the challenges of communicating medical
risks to patients.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
5. Content\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 13. Ill-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
7. Possible health outcomes\
11. Severity of outcome\
12. Time course of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
14. Actual treatment behavior\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Bond, G. G.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Dioxin: A case study\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 177-182\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents a case study of one company\'s efforts to
communicate chemical contamination risks to the public.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 12. Other\
26. Media-general\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Bord, Richard J.; O\'Connor, Robert E.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Risk communication, knowledge, and attitudes: Explaining
reactions to a technology perceived as risky\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 499-506\
**Summary Sentence**: Assesses effects of risk message characteristics,
personal attitudes, and knowledge on perceived acceptability of food
irradiation.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
20. Intended other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Bord, Richard J.; O\'Connor, Robert E.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Determinants of risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 12\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 411-416\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines subjects\' risk perceptions after reading
a hypothetical Superfund (toxic chemicals) scenario.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Borgida, Eugene; Nisbett, Richard E.\
**Year**: 1977\
**Title**: The differential impact of abstract vs. concrete information
on decisions\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 7\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 258-271\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the relative influence of group summaries
versus individual student comments on students\' course preferences.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 11. Peer/community member (not affected)\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 20. Intended other behavior (e.g., activism)

**Author**: Bostrom, Ann\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Vaccine risk communication: Lessons from risk perception,
decision making and environmental communication research\
**Journal**: Risk: Health, Safety, and Environment\
**Volume**: 8\
**Pages**: 173-200\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses theoretical and empirical findings that
could contribute to more effective vaccine risk communications.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 11. Multiple\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Bostrom, A.; Atman, C. J.; Fischhoff, B.; Morgan, M. G.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Evaluating risk communications: Completing and correcting
mental models of hazardous processes, Part II\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 789-798\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines college students\' comprehension of radon
risk communications using multiple evaluation methods.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
6. Recall of message\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Bottorff, Joan L.; Ratner, Pamela A.; Johnson, Joy L.;
Lovato, Chris Y.; Joab, S. Amanda\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Communicating cancer risk information: The challenges of
uncertainty\
**Journal**: Patient Education and Counseling\
**Volume**: 33\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 67-81\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews research on communication of cancer risk
information.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 12. General\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Brody, Jane E.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Communicating cancer risk in print journalism\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 170-172\
**Summary Sentence**: Suggests that it is the job of the print media to
correct for sensationalized and inaccurate radio and television coverage
of cancer risks.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 14. Media\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Budescu, D.V. ; Wallsten, T.S.\
**Year**: 1985\
**Title**: Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases\
**Journal**: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\
**Volume**: 36\
**Pages**: 391-405\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines lay people\'s interpretation of
probabilistic phrases (e.g., \"likely\" and \"seldom\") and consistency
of these interpretations over time.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
4. College student/Graduate student\
21. Other professionals and experts\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
14. Other\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk

**Author**: Budescu, David V.; Weinberg, Shalva; Wallsten, Thomas S.\
**Year**: 1988\
**Title**: Decisions based on numerically and verbally expressed
uncertainties\
**Journal**: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 281-294\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines college students\' verbal and numerical
interpretations of graphical displays versus probability phrases.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
21. Other\
27. Information processing/decision-making process

**Author**: Budescu, David V.; Wallsten, Thomas S.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and
empirical evidence\
**Journal**: The Psychology of Learning and Motivation\
**Volume**: 32\
**Pages**: 275-318\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews research on risk information presented
verbally versus linguistically, discusses factors that affect how people
understand imprecise linguistic terms, and challenges notion that risk
information presented numerically is always more useful than the same
information presented verbally.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Form of risk information**: 0. Format (general)\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood

**Author**: Buller, David B.; Borland, Ron; Burgoon, Michael\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Impact of behavioral intention on effectiveness of message
features: Evidence from the Family Sun Safety Project\
**Journal**: Human Communication Research\
**Volume**: 24\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 433-453\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of high versus low language
intensity and the use of inductive versus deductive logic in health
messages promoting sun safety.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
6. Recall of message\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 5 Skin cancer

**Author**: Burack, R. C.; Gimotty, P. A.; George, J.; Stengle, W.;
Warbasse, L.; Moncrease, A.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Promoting screening mammography in inner-city settings: A
randomized controlled trial of computerized reminders as a component of
a program to facilitate mammography\
**Journal**: Medical Care\
**Volume**: 32\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 609-624\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports results of limited and full interventions
to increase breast cancer awareness and mammography use.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
9. Telephone\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Cameron, Linda D.; Leventhal, Howard\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Vulnerability beliefs, symptom experiences, and the
processing of health threat information: A self-regulatory perspective\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 25\
**Issue**: 21\
**Pages**: 1859-1883\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of experiencing symptoms of
heart disease and receiving high or low threat health information about
heart disease on perceived illness likelihood and exercise intentions.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke

**Author**: Celuch, Kevin; Lust, John; Showers, Linda\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: A test of a model of consumers\' responses to product manual
safety information\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 28\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 377-394\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the relationships among threat arousal,
perceived efficacy of product use, and product use intentions following
receipt of product manual safety information.\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 15. Injury/safety (non-auto)

**Author**: Chalmers, K.; Thomson, K.; Degner, LF.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Information, support and communication needs of women with a
family history of breast cancer\
**Journal**: Cancer Nursing\
**Volume**: 19\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 204-213\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes the information sought by women at risk
for breast cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
10. Patient/peer/community member (affected)\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 3. Caucasian\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
12. Other\
26. Media-general\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Champion, Victoria; Huster, Gertrude\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Effect of interventions on stage of mammography adoption\
**Journal**: Journal of Behavioral Medicine\
**Volume**: 18\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 169-187\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effectiveness of individualized
interventions on mammography compliance.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 10. Other\
11. Home\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Chapman, G. B.; Elstein, A. S.; Hughes, K. K.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Effects of patient education on decisions about breast cancer
treatments: A preliminary report\
**Journal**: Medical Decision Making\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 231-239\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares the effects of presenting breast cancer
information in a video versus booklet form on knowledge and treatment
preferences.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid\
3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Chase, Gary A.; Faden, Ruth R.; Holzman, Neil A.; Chwalow,
A. Judith; Leonard, Claire O.; Lopes, Cheryl; Quaid, Kimberly\
**Year**: 1986\
**Title**: Assessment of risk by pregnant women: Implications for
genetic counseling and education\
**Journal**: Social Biology\
**Volume**: 33\
**Issue**: 1-2\
**Pages**: 57-64\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines pregnant women\'s estimates of the risk
of birth defects compared to neural tube defects.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or
hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 5. Birth defects

**Author**: Chess, Caron; Hance, Billie Joe\
**Year**: 1988\
**Title**: Alerting the apathetic and reassuring the alarmed:
Communicating about radon risk in three communities\
**City**: Washington, DC\
**Pages**: 38\
**Date**: August 1988\
**Report Number**: EPA-230-08-88-036\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews the success of radon risk communication
efforts in three very different situations and makes recommendations for
future programs.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
7. Outcome\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
7. Radio\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
2. Communication style\
9. Preventability of hazard/personal control\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Chess, Caron; Salomone, Kandice L.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Rhetoric and reality: Risk communication in government
agencies\
**Journal**: Journal of Environmental Education\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 28-33\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares the intentions of government agencies for
communicating risk to the public with their actual practices.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 8. Small groups/focus groups\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Chess, Caron; Salomone, Kandice L.; Hance, Billie Jo\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Improving risk communication in government: Research
priorities\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 127-135\
**Summary Sentence**: Qualitative interviews and survey data used to
explore risk communication experts\' views on improving government
agency\'s risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
21. Other professionals and experts\
**Outcomes**: 21. Other

**Author**: Chess, Caron; Salomone, Kandice L.; Hance, Billie Jo;
Saville, Alex\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Results of a national symposium on risk communication: New
steps for government agencies\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 115-125\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses bringing in outside perspectives,
evaluation, and communicating with diverse communities and organizations
as issues that government agencies need to address to improve risk
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
21. Other professionals and experts\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
21. Other

**Author**: Chess, Caron; Saville, Alex; Tamuz, Michal; Greenberg,
Michael\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: The organizational links between risk communication and risk
management: The case of Sybron Chemicals Inc.\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 12\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 431-438\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses a case study of a risk communication
program and presents propositions regarding risk communication and risk
management.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 8. Small groups/focus groups\
9. Telephone\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Clancy, C.M.; Cebul, R.D.; Williams, S.V.\
**Year**: 1988\
**Title**: Guiding individual decisions: A randomized, controlled trial
of decision analysis\
**Journal**: American Journal of Medicine\
**Volume**: 84\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 283-288\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of providing information on
information plus individualized decision analysis on physicians\' and
faculty members\' vaccination against Hepatitis B.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
14. Other\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 12. Other infectious diseases (e.g., Lyme disease)

**Author**: Clark, S. K.; Leighton, B. L.; Seltzer, J. L.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: A risk-specific anesthesia consent form may hinder the
informed consent process\
**Journal**: Journal of Clinical Anesthesia\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 11-13\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of a pre-printed consent form
on the amount of risk information recalled by post-operative patients.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 13. Ill-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
12. Other\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
6. Recall of message\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Clift, Elayne\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: HEALTHCOM: A communication methodology for health in the
Third World\
**Journal**: Health Education Research\
**Volume**: 5\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 99-106\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes how the HEALTHCOM project relies on
social marketing, behavior analysis, and anthropology to effectively
communicate health risks to the public.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
3. Setting\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Cline, Rebecca W.; Johnson, Sarah J.; Freeman, Kim E.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Talk among sexual partners about AIDS: Interpersonal
communication for risk reduction or risk enhancement?\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 39-56\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines how much college students discuss AIDS
with potential sexual partners.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
2. Audience\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Clover, K.; Redman, S.; Forbes, J.; Sanson-Fisher, R.;
Callaghan, T.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Two sequential randomized trials of community participation
to recruit women for mammographic screening\
**Journal**: Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 25\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 126-134\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates the effectiveness of different
interventions on screening programs.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
13. Other\
15. Community group\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
10. TV\
11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
20. General information about recommended action\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Cody, Robyn; Lee, Christina\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Behaviors, beliefs, and intentions in skin cancer prevention\
**Journal**: Journal of Behavioral Medicine\
**Volume**: 13\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 373-389\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of videos (informational
focus or emotional appeal) on college students\' knowledge, risk
perceptions, and intentions to use sunscreen.\
**Publication Type:** 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 5 Skin cancer

**Author**: Cohen, Alexander; Colligan, Michael J. ; Berger, Philip\
**Year**: 1985\
**Title**: Psychology in health risk messages for workers\
**Journal**: Journal of Occupational Medicine\
**Volume**: 27\
**Issue**: 8\
**Pages**: 543-551\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes guidelines for communicating workplace
health threats to workers.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
12. Other\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Cohen, J.B.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Smokers\' knowledge and understanding of advertised tar
numbers: Health policy implications\
**Journal**: American Journal of Public Health\
**Volume**: 86\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 1577-1581\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports results of a national survey on smokers\'
interpretations of tar information on cigarette packages and discusses
the implications for cigarette advertising.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 12. Other\
24. Product label/packaging\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
14. Other\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 17. Smoking

**Author**: Connelly, Nancy A.; Knuth, Barbara A.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Evaluating risk communication: Examining target audience
perceptions about four presentation formats for fish consumption health
advisory information\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 18\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 649-659\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates four presentation formats for
communicating the health risks of eating chemically contaminated Great
Lakes fish.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Covello, Vincent T.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Trust and credibility in risk communication\
**Journal**: Health and Environment Digest\
**Volume**: 6\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 1-3\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses spokesperson credibility and
implications for effective risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
17. Other\
21. Other professionals and experts\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 3. Lecture\
4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Covello, Vincent T.\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Communicating information about the health risks of
radioactive waste: A review of obstacles to public understanding\
**Journal**: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine\
**Volume**: 65\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 467-482\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses barriers to the public\'s understanding
of radioactive waste issues and presents suggestions for improving risk
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
5. Content\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
21. Other\
27. Information processing/decision-making process\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Covello, Vincent T.; Sandman, Peter M.; Slovic, Paul\
**Year**: 1988\
**Title**: Risk communication, risk statistics, and risk comparisons: A
manual for plant managers\
**City**: Washington, DC\
**Publisher**: Chemical Manufacturers Association\
**Number of Pages**: 57\
**Summary Sentence**: Offers guidelines to chemical plant managers for
effective risk communication to both employees and community members.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Communicator**: 1. Authority figure (non-expert)\
13. Other\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
17. Other\
5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk 21. Other\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Croyle, Robert T.; Lerman, Caryn\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Risk communication in genetic testing for cancer
susceptibility\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 59-66\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the influences of perceived
vulnerability for cancer, perceived risks of genetic testing,
psychological distress, and family on genetic testing for cancer
susceptibility.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
26. Relative\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)\
2. Measurement (studies of different response formats)

**Author**: Croyle, Robert T.; Sun, Yi-Chun; Louie, Douglas H.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Psychological minimization of cholesterol test results:
Moderators of appraisal in college students and community residents\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 12\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 503-507\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of information from
cholesterol level tests on perceptions of cholesterol\'s threat to
health and test accuracy.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
21. Test results\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
8. Risk perception-severity\
16. Intended information seeking behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke\
20. Other

**Author**: Croyle, Robert T.; Hunt, Julie R.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Coping with health threat: Social influence processes in
reactions to medical test results\
**Journal**: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 60\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 382-389\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of another person\'s test
result and reactions on subjects\' perceptions of a hypothetical
disease.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
14. Other\
21. Test results\
**Form of risk information**: 6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 14. Hypothetical risk

**Author**: Curbow, B.; McDiarmid, M. A.; Breysse, P.; Lees, P. S.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Investigation of a spontaneous abortion cluster: Development
of a risk communication plan\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 26\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 265-275\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines women\'s perceptions of the risk of
spontaneous abortion caused by their work environment and recommends a
risk communication plan based on these findings.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
9. Workplace\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not
pollutants)\
20. Other

**Author**: Curry, S. J.; Taplin, S. H.; Anderman, C.; Barlow, W. E.;
McBride, C.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: A randomized trial of the impact of risk assessment and
feedback on participation in mammography screening\
**Journal**: Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 22\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 350-360\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates the effects of providing individualized
risk factor information on screening participation.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Cvetkovich, George; Earle, Timothy C.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Environmental hazards and the public\
**Journal**: Journal of Social Issues\
**Volume**: 48\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 1-20\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses issues concerning effective management
of environmental hazards, including ways in which risk communication can
be improved.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Dake, Karl\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk\
**Journal**: Journal of Social Issues\
**Volume**: 48\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 21-37\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses how the meaning and identification of
risk is determined by society and culture.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Channels of risk communication**: 12. Other\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Davison, B.J.; Degner, L.F.; Morgan, J.R.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Information and decision making preferences of men with
prostatic cancer\
**Journal**: Oncology Nursing Forum\
**Volume**: 22\
**Issue**: 9\
**Pages**: 1401-1408\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines preferences for involvement and type of
information of men diagnosed with prostate cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 13. Ill-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 2. Male\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Outcomes**: 16. Intended information seeking behavior\
21. Other\
28. Information/communication preferences\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 4 Prostate cancer

**Author**: de Marchi, Bruna\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: The Seveso Directive: An Italian pilot study in enabling
communication\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 207-215\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines Italian subjects\' information choices -
who they prefer as a source, what style and type of message they most
prefer - in connection to the Seveso Directive.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
21. Other\
28. Information/communication preferences\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
20. Other\
44. Seveso Directive

**Author**: Dedinsky, Mary A.\
**Year**: 1988\
**Title**: The effects of instruction in holistic health on
self-concept, anxiety, and responses of lay pastoral care ministers\
**University**: Marquette U, WI, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 48(7-A), Jan 1988,
1658.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: DeFriese, Gordon H.; Fielding, Jonathan E.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Health risk appraisal in the 1990\'s: Opportunities,
challenges, and expectations\
**Journal**: Annual Review of Public Health\
**Volume**: 11\
**Pages**: 401-418\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the history, use, and future outlook of
health risk appraisals.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 12. General\
**Channels of risk communication**: 12. Other\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires

**Author**: Diefenbach, M.A., Weinstein, N.D., O\'Reilly, J.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Scales for assessing perceptions of health hazard
susceptibility\
**Journal**: Health Education Research\
**Volume**: 8\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 181-192\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates the effectiveness of different scales
for measuring perceptions of risk likelihood in terms of subjects\'
ratings of the scales as well as the scales\' validity and reliability.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Ditto, Peter H.; Jemmott, John B.; Darley, John M.\
**Year**: 1988\
**Title**: Appraising the threat of illness: A mental representational
approach\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 7\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 183-201\
**Summary Sentence**: Tests a mental model of illness threat perception
with a study in which subjects were told that they tested positively or
negatively for a fictitious risk factor for pancreatic disease.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
12. Other\
23. Audiotape\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
16. Intended information seeking behavior\
**Hazard**: 14. Hypothetical risk

**Author**: Ditto, Peter H.; Lopez, David F.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria
for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions\
**Journal**: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 63\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 568-584\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines college students\' willingness to believe
a saliva test result.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
14. Other\
21. Test results\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
7. Oral/spoken\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 14. Hypothetical risk

**Author**: Dolan, J. G.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Are patients capable of using the analytic hierarchy process
and willing to use it to help make clinical decisions?\
**Journal**: Medical Decision Making\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 76-80\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines whether patients are capable of and
willing to use a computer-based decision aid that focuses on
preventative measures against colon cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 10. Decision aid\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6.12 Colon cancer\
6.13 Other cancer

**Author**: Donohew, Lewis; Palmgreen, Philip; Lorch, Elizabeth Pugzles\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Attention, need for sensation, and health communication
campaigns\
**Journal**: American Behavioral Scientist\
**Volume**: 38\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 310-322\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines effects of PSA\'s about drug use of high
versus low sensation value on an at-risk audience of high sensation
seeking adolescents.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
8. Non-governmental organization (e.g., Am. Lung Assoc.)\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
8. At risk/exposed-child or teen\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 8. Drug abuse

**Author**: Doyle, James K.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Judging cumulative risk\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 27\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 500-524\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines college students\' ratings of hazards
with differing probabilities and time courses and their strategies for
arriving at these estimates.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
12. Time course of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Dunwoody, Sharon\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Telling public stories about risk\
**Editor**: MacDonald, J. F.\
**Book Title**: Agricultural Biotechnology: A Public Conversation about
Risk\
**City**: Ithaca, NY\
**Publisher**: National Agricultural Biotechnology Council\
**Pages**: 97-106\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the role of channels in informing the
public about risks and in determining whether or not the risk is
relevant to them, with a focus on mass media and interpersonal
channels.\
**Publication Type** 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Channels of risk communication**: 0. Channels (general)\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
28. Information/communication preferences

**Author**: Dunwoody, Sharon; Neuwirth, Kurt\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Risky Business\
**Editors**: Wilkins, Lee; Patterson, Philip\
**Book Title**: Risky Business: Communicating issues of science, risk,
and public policy\
**City**: Westport, CT\
**Publisher**: Greenwood Press\
**Pages**: 11-30\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews risk communication literature and argues
for researchers to use clearly defined concepts when studying how
information is obtained and used to make risk decisions.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Communicator**: 12. Unspecified\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Outcomes**: 9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs\
19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)\
2. Measurement (studies of different response formats)

**Author**: Dunwoody, Sharon; Neuwirth, Kurt; Griffin, Robert J.; Long,
Marilee\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: The impact of risk message content and construction on
comments about risks embedded in \"letters to friends\"\
**Journal**: Journal of Language and Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 1-2\
**Pages**: 9-33\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines how level of risk, severity of risk,
presence of a risky headline and personalization of the message
influenced students\' perceptions of risk , worry, and mentions of risk
in a letter to a friend.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
11. Severity of outcome\
22. Personalized information\
**Form of risk information**: 6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
12. Other infectious diseases (e.g., Lyme disease)\
20. Other

**Author**: Edwards, Adrian; Matthews, Elaine; Pill, Roisin; Bloor,
Michael\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Communication about risk: The responses of primary care
professionals to standardizing the \'language of risk\' and
communication tools\
**Journal**: Family Practice\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 301-307\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines primary care professionals\' attitudes
toward standardizing the language of risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group

**Author**: Edwards, Adrian; Matthews, Elaine; Pill, Roisin; Bloor,
Michael\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Communication about risk: Diversity among primary care
professionals\
**Journal**: Family Practice\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 296-300\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports health professionals\' concerns about
communication of risk to patients.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
20. Patient (general)\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Edwards, A.; Prior, L.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Communication about risk\--dilemmas for general
practitioners\
**Journal**: British Journal of General Practice\
**Volume**: 47\
**Issue**: 424\
**Pages**: 739-742\
**Summary Sentence**: Explores the language of risk (including
probability) as it pertains to improving risk communication between
general practitioners and their patients.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
14. Other\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Environmental_Protection_Agency\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Hazardous substances in our environment: A citizen\'s guide
to understanding health risks and reducing exposure\
**City**: Washington, DC\
**Institutional Author**: Environmental Protection Agency\
**Pages**: 125\
**Report Number**: EPA 230-09-90-081\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the risks of hazardous environmental
substances for human health.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Erev, Ido; Cohen, Brent L.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases,
and the preference paradox\
**Journal**: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\
**Volume**: 45\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 1-18\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines subjects\' preferences for rating the
attractiveness of gambles numerically and verbally.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 20. Other

**Author**: Evans, D. G. R.; Burnell, L. D.; Hopwood, P.; Howell, A.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Perception of risk in women with a family history of breast
cancer\
**Journal**: British Journal of Cancer\
**Volume**: 67\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 612-614\
**Summary Sentence**: Questionnaire study examines perceptions of risk
in women with a family history of breast cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Evers, Kerry E.; Bishop, Carianne H.; Gerhan, Lisa S.;
Weisse, Carol S.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: AIDS educator effectiveness as a function of sexual
orientation and HIV status\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 27\
**Issue**: 10\
**Pages**: 902-914\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of an AIDS educator\'s
sexual orientation and HIV status on college students\' knowledge, risk
perceptions, and behavioral intentions.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 10. Patient/peer/community member (affected)\
11. Peer/community member (not affected)\
13. Other\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
9. Preventability of hazard\
14. Other\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Finendale, M. J.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Beyond notification: A case study from Cloquet, Minnesota\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 153-159\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the process of worker notification
regarding the risk from asbestos exposure in Cloquet, Minnesota.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
7. Outcome\
11. Multiple\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
10. TV\
11. Video\
12. Other\
21. Letter\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
17. Smoking\
\
\
\
**Author**: Finkel, A. M.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Toward less misleading comparisons of uncertain risks: The
example of aflatoxin and alar\
**Journal**: Environmental Health Perspectives\
**Volume**: 103\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 376-385\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines whether comparative risk presentations
are effective in conveying uncertainties.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or
hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Fischhoff, Baruch\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Why (cancer) risk communication can be hard\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute\
**Pages**: 1-25\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the difficulties of cancer risk
communication, including the communicator\'s challenge of presenting a
clear message and the audience\'s cognitive capacity to process the
message.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Fischhoff, Baruch\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of
process\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 137-145\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the history of risk communication, its
development over the past twenty years, and suggestions for the best
ways to do risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
12. General\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 8. Risk perception-severity\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)\
3. Other

**Author**: Fischhoff, Baruch\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Risk: A guide to controversy\
**Editor**: Committee on Risk Perception and Communication, National
Research Council\
**Book Title**: Improving risk communication\
**City**: Washington, DC\
**Publisher**: National Academy Press\
**Pages**: Appendix C 211-319\
**Summary Sentence**: Designed as a guide to understanding risk
controversies, outlines the essential dimensions of risks for risk
management and risk communication. Strategies for designing risk
communications are provided. Divided into the following sections: \"The
science,\" \"Science and policy,\" \" The nature of the controversy,\"
\"Strategies for risk communication,\" and \"Psychological principles in
communication design.\"\
**Publication Type** 2. Review\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role, Ethnicity, & Gender**: 0. Audience role (general)\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Fischhoff, B.; Bostrom, A.; Quadrel, M. J.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Risk perception and communication\
**Journal**: Annual Review of Public Health\
**Volume**: 14\
**Pages**: 183-203\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses biases in judgment that can affect risk
perception, mental models of risk perception, and strategies for
effective risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
13. Actual testing/screening\
21. Other\
27. Information processing/decision-making process\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Fischhoff, B.; Downs, J. S.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Communicating foodborne disease risk\
**Journal**: Emerging Infectious Diseases\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 489-495\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses how risk communication research can be
used to help inform consumers about foodborne diseases.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 12. Other\
24. Product label/packaging\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
7. Possible health outcomes\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
23. Food related risks

**Author**: Fischhoff, Baruch; MacGregor, Don\
**Year**: 1983\
**Title**: Judged lethality: How much people seem to know depends upon
how much they are asked\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 229-236\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines how lay people\'s lethality judgments are
affected by use of different response scales.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Fischhoff, Baruch; de Bruin, Wandi Bruine\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Fifty-fifty = 50%?\
**Journal**: Journal of Behavioral Decision Making\
**Volume**: 12\
**Pages**: 149-163\
**Summary Sentence**: Studied conditions under which people report the
likelihood of a risk as \"50%\" or \"fifty-fifty\" when they really mean
that they have no idea what to answer.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student\
5. Adult\
**Setting**: 2. community meeting/community group\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Fisher, Ann\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Planning indoor air risk communication programs: Lessons for
alerting people versus reassuring them\
**Journal**: Indoor Air\
**Volume**: 3\
**Pages**: 57-64\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews research on risk communication and
discusses when and how to reassure versus alert people about
environmental risks.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Channels of risk communication**: 26. Media-general\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)\
19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Fisher, Ann\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Risk communication challenges\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 173-179\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the challenges facing risk communicators
and provides recommendations for increasing effectiveness.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Fisher, Ann; Chen, Ya-Chin\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Customer perceptions of agency risk communication\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 16\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 177-184\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports results of a survey of customers\'
satisfaction with a government agency\'s risk communication practices.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
12. Other\
**Outcomes**: 10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Fisher, A.; McClelland, G. H.; Schulze, W. D.; Doyle, J. K.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Communicating the risk from radon\
**Journal**: Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association\
**Volume**: 41\
**Issue**: 11\
**Pages**: 1440-1445\
**Summary Sentence**: Contrasts two studies of homeowners\' radon
testing and mitigation practices in response to differing risk
communication programs.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Flora, June A.; Schooler, Caroline; Mays, Vickie M.;
Cochran, Susan D.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Exploring a model of symbolic social communication: The case
of \"Magic\" Johnson\
**Journal**: Journal of Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 1\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 353-366\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines male college students\' and homeless
males\' perceptions of the credibility of celebrity and professional
communications of HIV prevention messages.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
**Audience Gender**: 2. Male\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
10. Other\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Fong, Geoffrey T.; Rempel, Lynn A.; Hall, Peter A.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Challenges to improving health risk communication in the 21st
century\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 173-176\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses risk communication considerations
including ways to present risk, measure effectiveness, and work more
productively with mass media.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
6. Format\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 2. Internet (listserves, web pages)\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Forrow, Lachlan; Taylor, William C.; Arnold, Robert M.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Absolutely relative: How research results are summarized can
affect treatment decisions\
**Journal**: The American Journal of Medicine\
**Volume**: 92\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 121-124\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines effects of different presentations of
health information on physicians\' treatment decisions.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 21. Other\
14. Actual treatment behavior\
27. Information processing/decision-making process\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke

**Author**: Fox, Craig R.; Irwin, Julie R.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: The role of context in the communication of uncertain
beliefs\
**Journal**: Basic and Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 20\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 57-70\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses six factors that influence audiences
(prior beliefs, context, speakers\' motivations, etc.) when updating
their uncertain beliefs.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
3. Setting\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Fox, S. A.; Murata, P. J.; Stein, J. A.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: The impact of physician compliance on screening mammography
for older women\
**Journal**: Archives of Internal Medicine\
**Volume**: 151\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 50-56\
**Summary Sentence**: Investigates the effects of physician-patient
discussions on mammography and screening practices.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Frazier, E. L.; Jiles, R. B.; Mayberry, R.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Use of screening mammography and clinical breast examinations
among Black, Hispanic, and White women\
**Journal**: Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 25\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 118-125\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines reported mammography use by women of
different race/ethnic groups.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
3. Caucasian\
4. Hispanic\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Freeman, R. C.; French, J. F.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: What is the addicts\' grapevine when there\'s \'bad dope\'?
An investigation in New Jersey\
**Journal**: Public Health Reports\
**Volume**: 110\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 621-624\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports survey in which drug users were asked
about the channels through which they learn about severe threats to
their health.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 1. Authority figure (non-expert)\
13. Other\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 8. Drug abuse

**Author**: Freimuth, V. S.; Mettger, W.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Is there a hard-to-reach audience?\
**Journal**: Public Health Reports\
**Volume**: 105\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 232-238\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses alternatives to viewing audiences as
\"hard-to- reach\" and provides recommendations for different risk
communication responses.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
**Communicator**: 12. Unspecified\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Freimuth, V. S.; Van Nevel, J. P.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Channels and vehicles of communication: The asbestos
awareness campaign\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 105-111\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of a government multi-media
asbestos awareness program on the general public\'s knowledge and risk
awareness regarding asbestos exposure.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Freudenburg, W. R.; Rursch, J. A.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: The risks of \"Putting the numbers in context\": A cautionary
tale\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 949-958\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of presenting risk likelihood
information in absolute versus comparative terms on college students\'
attitudes toward a hazardous waste incinerator.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
20. Intended other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Frewer, L. J.; Howard, C.; Hedderley, D.; Shepherd, R.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: The elaboration likelihood model and communication about food
risks\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 17\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 759-770\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates the effects of varying hazard type,
source credibility, and message persuasiveness on perceived risk and
level of information processing.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
5. Content\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
14. Other\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
21. Other\
27. Information processing/decision-making process\
**Hazard**: 1. Alcohol\
20. Other\
23. Food related risks

**Author**: Frewer, L. J.; Howard, C.; Hedderley, D.; Shepherd, R.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: What determines trust in information about food-related
risks? Underlying psychological constructs\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 16\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 473-486\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes three studies indicating that moderately
accountable sources engender the most trust regarding food-related
hazards.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
7. Outcome\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
23. Food related risks\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Gabbard-Alley, Anne S.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Health communication and gender: A review and critique\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 7\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 35-54\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews research on patient gender and health
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Gail, Mitchell H.; Costantino, Joseph P.; Bryant, John;
Croyle, Robert; Freedman, Laurence; Helzlsouer, Kathy; Vogel, Victor\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Weighing the risks and benefits of tamoxifen treatment for
preventing breast cancer\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute\
**Volume**: 91\
**Issue**: 21\
**Pages**: 1829-1846\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents a risk-benefit analysis of tamoxifen
treatment for preventing breast cancer and discusses the implications
for explaining the risks to patients.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
3. Caucasian\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
7. Possible health outcomes\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 14. Actual treatment behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Garte, S. J.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Communication of relative carcinogenic risks: A quantitative
approach \[letter\]\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 467-468\
**Summary Sentence**: Proposes the use of a logarithmic scale (to denote
carcinogenic risk from different sources) to aid the public\'s
comprehension of risk.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Gerbert, B.; Bleecker, T.; Saub, E.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Risk perception and risk communication: Benefits of
dentist-patient discussions\
**Journal**: Journal of the American Dental Association\
**Volume**: 126\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 333-339\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports results of a survey that asked dental
patients about their concerns and their risk-related discussions with
their dentists.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
21. Dental issues

**Author**: Gerrard, Meg; Gibbons, Frederick X.; Reis-Bergen, Monica\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: The effect of risk communication on risk perceptions: The
significance of individual differences\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 94-100\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews studies examining the relation between
risk communication and behavior change, and studies on tailoring risk
communications to individuals\' characteristics.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 0. Audience role (general)\
**Content of risk message**: 22. Personalized information\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Gibbons, Frederick X.; McGovern, Paul G.; Lando, Harry A.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Relapse and risk perception among members of a smoking
cessation clinic\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 42-45\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares risk perceptions of members of a smoking
cessation clinic who abstained from smoking throughout treatment with
those who did not.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 8. Small groups/focus groups\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 3. Asthma/Emphysema/Chronic lung disease\
6. 0 Cancer\
6.13 Other cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer\
13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke

**Author**: Gigerenzer, G.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: The psychology of good judgment: Frequency formats and simple
algorithms\
**Journal**: Medical Decision Making\
**Volume**: 16\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 273-280\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses why Bayesian inferences are more likely
to be correct when information is presented in a frequency format than
in a probability format, and suggests that reasoning can be effective
even if it does not meet criteria of \"rationality.\"\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood

**Author**: Gigerenzer, Gerd; Hoffrage, Ulrich\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: How to improve Bayesian reasoning without instruction:
Frequency formats\
**Journal**: Psychological Review\
**Volume**: 102\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 684-704\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of format (probability versus
frequency) on statistically naive participants\' perceptions of risk
likelihood.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
21. Other\
27. Information processing/decision-making process\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Golding, Dominic; Krimsky, Sheldon; Plough, Alonzo\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Evaluating risk communication: Narrative vs. technical
presentations of information about radon\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 12\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 27-35\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines whether a technical or narrative format
is more effective in changing attitudes and increasing knowledge about
radon.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
2. Communication style\
3. Definition of hazard\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
6. Recall of message\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Gots, Ronald E.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Public versus personal risk: The challenge in environmental
risk communication\
**Journal**: Technology: Journal of the Franklin Institute\
**Volume**: 331A\
**Pages**: 59-65\
**Summary Sentence**: Suggests using a matrix approach to designing risk
communications, where the matrix involves level of health concern and
level of indignation or outrage.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not pollutants)\
19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Grady, K. E.; Lemkau, J. P.; McVay, J. M.; Reisine, S. T.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: The importance of physician encouragement in breast cancer
screening of older women\
**Journal**: Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 21\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 766-780\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the relationship between physician
encouragement and breast cancer screening among older women.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
2. Audience\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Gray, Abby\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Health communication during fetal development: An examination
of obstetrician-gynecologists\' and patients\' relational developmental
growth stages\
**University**: Bowling Green State U, OH, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 54(3-A), Sep 1993,
734.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: Gray, Philip C. R.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Waste incineration: Controversy and risk communication\
**Journal**: European Review of Applied Psychology/Revue Europeenne de
Psychologie Appliquee\
**Volume**: 45\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 29-34\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the controversy between DuPont and the
public over a proposed waste incinerator in Northern Ireland.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
12. Other\
22. Community meetings/community groups\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Green, M. J.; Fost, N.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: An interactive computer program for educating and counseling
patients about genetic susceptibility to breast cancer\
**Journal**: Journal of Cancer Education\
**Volume**: 12\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 204-208\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the benefits of computer program for
providing women with breast cancer information before genetic testing.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
13. Other\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Greening, Leilani; Chandler, Carla C.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Why it can\'t happen to me: The base rate matters, but
overestimating skill leads to underestimating risk\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 27\
**Issue**: 9\
**Pages**: 760-780\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of personal control and base
rates on college students\' estimates of their risk for aversive
events.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
9. Preventability of hazard/personal control\
14. Other\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Greening, L.; Dollinger, S.J.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Adolescents\' perceptions of lightning and tornado risks\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 22\
**Issue**: 10\
**Pages**: 755-762\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines high school students\' perceptions of
risk of death from lightning and tornados.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 3. Teen\
8. At risk/exposed-child or teen\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not
pollutants)

**Author**: Griffin, R. J.; Dunwoody, S.; Zabala, F.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Public reliance on risk communication channels in the wake of
a cryptosporidium outbreak\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 18\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 367-375\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes risk perceptions, demographics, worry,
and use of media after a cryptosporidium outbreak in the community.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 12. Other infectious diseases (e.g., Lyme disease)\
20. Other

**Author**: Grimes, David M.; Snively, Gillian R.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Patients\' understanding of medical risks: Implications for
genetic counseling\
**Journal**: Obstetrics and Gynecology\
**Volume**: 93\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 910-914\
**Summary Sentence**: Investigates whether women can more easily
understand probabilities when expressed with constant numerators (e.g.,
1 in 333 versus 1 in 250) or with constant denominators (e.g., 3 in 1000
versus 4 in 1000).\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 2. Asian\
3. Caucasian\
4. Hispanic\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 5. Birth defects

**Author**: Guidotti, Tee L.; Jacobs, Philip\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: The implications of an epidemiological mistake: A
community\'s response to a perceived excess cancer risk\
**Journal**: American Journal of Public Health\
**Volume**: 83\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 233-239\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports public opinion and property value trends
in response to an erroneous cancer risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
**Content of risk message**: 6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or
hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
24. Community or public response\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Hallowell, Nina; Statham, Helen; Murton, Frances\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Women\'s understanding of their risk of developing
breast/ovarian cancer before and after genetic counseling\
**Journal**: Journal of Genetic Counseling\
**Volume**: 7\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 345-364\
**Summary Sentence**: Shows how genetic risk counseling improves
women\'s knowledge of their own risk for breast cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Hallowell, Nina; Statham, Helen; Murton, Frances; Green, Jo;
Richards, Martin\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: \"Talking about chance\": The presentation of risk
information during genetic counseling for breast and ovarian cancer\
**Journal**: Journal of Genetic Counseling\
**Volume**: 6\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 269-286\
**Summary Sentence**: Surveys women\'s preferences among different
presentation formats when receiving cancer risk information from a
genetic counselor.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Halpern, Diane F.; Blackman, Sonia; Salzman, Billie\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Using statistical risk information to assess oral
contraceptive safety\
**Journal**: Applied Cognitive Psychology\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 251-260\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of different risk information
formats on perceptions of the risk of side effects from oral
contraceptives.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
5. Adult\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Hance, Billie J.; Chess, Caron; Sandman, Peter M.\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Setting a context for explaining risk\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 9\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 113-117\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the importance of understanding
community concerns, involving communities, and developing trust between
the agency and community during risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
21. Other\
24. Community or public response\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Editor**: Handmer, John; Penning-Roswell, Edmund\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Hazards and the Communication of Risk\
**City**: Brookfield, VT\
**Publisher**: Gower Technical\
**Number of Pages**: 350\
**Summary Sentence**: Book based on an international workshop on risk
communication, with a focus on communication regarding natural
disasters. Its chapters are divided into sections called \"Persuading
individuals,\" \"The context of persuasion,\" \"Assessing success,\" and
\"Programme design and implementation.\"\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
8. Measurement/evaluation\
11. Multiple\
**Audience Role, Ethnicity, & Gender**: 0. Audience role (general)\
**Channels of risk communication:** 0. Channels (general)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not pollutants)\
11. HIV/AIDS/STDs\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Hansson, Sven Ove\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Dimensions of risk\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 9\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 107-112\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses eight considerations in using risk
comparisons.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
12. Time course of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Harding, Christina M.; Eiser, J. Richard; Kristiansen,
Connie M.\
**Year**: 1982\
**Title**: The representation of mortality statistics and the perceived
importance of causes of death\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 12\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 169-181\
**Summary Sentence**: Investigates different formats for representing
statistics that influence students\' impressions of causes of death.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 3. Teen\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Haug, Marie R.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: The effects of physician/elder patient characteristics on
health communication\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 8\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 249-262\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the demographic factors that affect
doctor-patient communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 15. Ill-senior citizen\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Hazen, G. B.; Hopp, W. J.; Pellissier, J. M.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Continuous-risk utility assessment in medical decision
making\
**Journal**: Medical Decision Making\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 294-304\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines adults\' responses under a conventional
assessment protocol versus a continuous risk utility assessment protocol
and argues the benefits of the latter.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
4. College student\
21. Other professionals and experts\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
12. Time course of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Helitzer-Allen, D. L.; Kendall, C.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Explaining differences between qualitative and quantitative
data: A study of chemoprophylaxis during pregnancy\
**Journal**: Health Education Quarterly\
**Volume**: 19\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 41-54\
**Summary Sentence**: Uses multiple methods to evaluate the
effectiveness of a health program designed to encourage pregnant women
to prevent and treat malaria.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 7. Other\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 12. Other infectious diseases (e.g., Lyme disease)\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Henderson, Joseph; Noell, John; Reeves, Thomas; Robinson,
Thomas; Strecher, Victor\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Developers and evaluation of interactive health communication
applications\
**Journal**: American Journal of Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 16\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 30-34\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the importance of program evaluations in
the development of successful interactive health communication
software.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
13. Other\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Holtgrave, David R.; Tinsley, Barbara J.; Kay, Linda S.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Encouraging risk reduction: A decision making approach to
message design\
**Editor**: Maibach, Edward; Parrott, Roxanne Louiselle\
**Book Title**: Designing health messages: Approaches from communication
theory and public health practice\
**City**: Thousand Oaks, CA\
**Publisher**: Sage Publications, Inc.\
**Pages**: 24-40\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses behavioral decision making constructs
and how they can be used to improve models of health behavior change and
health communication.\
**Publication Type** 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
**Audience Role, Ethnicity, & Gender**: 16. General public\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs\
19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Holtgrave, David R.; Tinsley, Barbara J.; Kay, Linda S.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Heuristics, biases, and environmental health risk analysis\
**Editor**: Heath, Linda; Tindale, R. Scott\
**Book Title**: Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues\
**City**: New York, NY\
**Publisher**: Plenum Press\
**Pages**: 259-285\
**Series Title**: Social psychological applications to social issues,
Vol. 3.\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the possible roles of heuristics and
biases in environmental risk communication and in environmental health
risk analysis.\
**Publication Type** 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
6. Format

**Author**: Holtgrave, D.R.; Weber, E.U.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks\
**Journal**: Risk analysis\
**Volume**: 13\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 553-558\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares two models of risk perception for health
and financial risks.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Hopwood, Penelope\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Psychological issues in cancer genetics: Current research and
future priorities\
**Journal**: Patient Education and Counseling\
**Volume**: 32\
**Issue**: 1-2\
**Pages**: 19-31\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the psychological impact, including risk
perception, of genetic testing and counseling for those at high risk for
developing cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
13. Actual testing/screening\
18. Intended testing/screening\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Horowitz, L. G.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Risk communication in dental practice: Responding assertively
to AIDS, fear and infection control\
**Journal**: Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association\
**Volume**: 73\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 16-18, 65\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses ways to reduce fear and increase trust
between dentist and patient regarding the risk of HIV.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Hoskins, Kent F.; Stopfer, Jill E.; Calzone, Kathleen A.;
Merajver, Sofia D.; Rebbeck, Timothy R.; Garber, Judy E.; Weber, Barbara
L.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Assessment and counseling for women with a family history of
breast cancer: A guide for clinicians\
**Journal**: Journal of the American Medical Association\
**Volume**: 273\
**Issue**: 7\
**Pages**: 577-585\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses issues of assessment and counseling for
women with a family history of breast cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Houts, P. S.; McDougall, V.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Importance of evaluating the context within which
notification occurs\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 205-210\
**Summary Sentence**: Suggests that effective health risk notification
to workers requires an understanding of the context in which the message
is received, including workers\' preexisting attitudes and health
behaviors.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 12. Other\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Huerta, Elmer E.; Macario, Everly\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Communicating health risk to ethnic groups: Reaching
Hispanics as a case study\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 23-26\
**Summary Sentence**: Advocates consideration of cultural differences in
risk communication, such as \"collectivist\" versus \"individualist\"
cultures, using a case study of a mass media campaign aimed at Hispanics
as an example.\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 4. Hispanic

**Author**: Hutchinson, M. Katherine; Cooney, Teresa M.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Patterns of parent-teen sexual risk communication:
Implications for intervention\
**Journal**: Family Relations: Interdisciplinary Journal of Applied
Family Studies\
**Volume**: 47\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 185-194\
**Summary Sentence**: Surveys late adolescent females about sexual risk
communications with their parents and their current sexual attitudes and
behaviors.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 9. Parent\
**Audience Role**: 3. Teen\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
3. Caucasian\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Hux, J.E., Naylor, C.D.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy:
Does the format of efficacy data determine patients\' acceptance of
treatment?\
**Journal**: Medical Decision Making\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 152-157\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of presentation format
(e.g. risk reduction, gain in disease free years) on outpatient\'s
willingness to take a heart medication.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 21. Other\
19. Intended treatment behavior\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke

**Author**: Ibrekk, Harald; Morgan, M. Granger\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Graphical communication of uncertain quantities to
nontechnical people\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 7\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 519-529\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares the effectiveness of nine different
graphical displays for communicating qualitative uncertainty.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 14. Hypothetical risk

**Author**: Jackson, Lorraine Diana\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Health communication: An assessment of attitudes, beliefs,
and reported adherence to treatment in physical medicine and
rehabilitation patients\
**University**: Pennsylvania State U, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 53(12-A), Jun 1993,
4129.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: Jardine, Cynthia G.; Hrudey, Steve E.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Mixed messages in risk communication\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 17\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 489-498\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses particular words that may confuse the
public during risk communication and ways to avoid this confusion.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
9. Preventability of hazard/personal control\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Jemmott, John B.; Ditto, Peter H.; Croyle, Robert T.\
**Year**: 1986\
**Title**: Judging health status: Effects of perceived prevalence and
personal relevance\
**Journal**: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 50\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 899-905\
**Summary Sentence**: Assesses the effects of perceived prevalence and
personal relevance of a disorder on perceptions of the seriousness of
that disorder.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Done: coded, entered, and filed\
6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 8. Small groups/focus groups\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 8. Risk perception-severity\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
**Hazard**: 14. Hypothetical risk

**Author**: Johnson, Branden B.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Coping with paradoxes of risk communication: Observations and
suggestions\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 13\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 241-243\
**Summary Sentence**: Critiques recommendations provided in manuals for
risk communicators.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
11. Peer/community member (not affected)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Johnson, Branden B.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: \"The mental model\" meets \"the planning process\":
Wrestling with risk communication research and practice\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 13\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 5-8\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares cognitive (i.e., mental model) and
procedural approaches to risk communication and discusses how to
integrate them.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Form of risk information**: 6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Johnson, E. J.; Tversky, A.\
**Year**: 1984\
**Title**: Representations and perceptions of risk\
**Journal**: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\
**Volume**: 113\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 55-70\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines people\'s perceptions of risks as
assessed with different response formats.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Johnson, F. Reed; Fisher, Ann\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Conventional wisdom on risk communication and evidence from a
field experiment\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 9\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 209-213\
**Summary Sentence**: Tests conventional wisdom about risk communication
in a field study of radon prevalence in New York State.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
17. Other\
5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
18. Intended testing/screening

**Author**: Johnson, J. David; Meischke, Hendrika\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Differences in the evaluations of communication sources by
women who have had a mammogram\
**Journal**: Journal of Psychosocial Oncology\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 83-101\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the sources of information encountered by
women concerned about cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
8. Non-governmental organization (e.g., Am. Lung Assoc.)\
11. Peer/community member (not affected)\
13. Other\
14. Media\
26. Relative\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Johnson, R. H., Jr.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Effective presentation of radiation safety training-risk
communication: An important function of radiation safety training\
**Journal**: Health Physics\
**Volume**: 76\
**Issue**: 2 Suppl\
**Pages**: S10-S15\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents suggestions for more effective
radiation-safety training.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Kasperson, Roger E.\
**Year**: 1986\
**Title**: Six propositions on public participation and their relevance
for risk communication\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 6\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 275-281\
**Summary Sentence**: Identifies ways in which risk communication
programs can be improved.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
3. Setting\
11. Multiple\
**Communicator**: 1. Authority figure (non-expert)\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 8. Small groups/focus groups\
10. TV\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Kasperson, Roger E.; Golding, Dominic; Tuler, Seth\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Social distrust as a factor in siting hazardous facilities
and communicating risks\
**Journal**: Journal of Social Issues\
**Volume**: 48\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 161-187\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the importance of social trust and
effective risk communication in solving controversies over hazardous
facility siting\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard** 10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not
pollutants)\
20. Other

**Editor**: Kasperson, Roger E.; Stallen, Pieter Jan M.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Communicating Risks to the Public: International
Perspectives\
**Series Title**: Technology, Risk, and Society: An International Series
in Risk Analysis\
**City**: Dordrecht, the Netherlands\
**Publisher**: Kluwer Academic Publishers\
**Volume**: 4\
**Number of Volumes**: 15 (12/1985-01/2000)\
**Number of Pages**: 432\
**Summary Sentence**: Part of a series called \"Technology, Risks, and
Society: An International Series in Risk Analysis.\" Volume focuses on
communicating health and environmental risks to the public. The chapters
are divided into sections called \"Risk communication practices\" and
\"New approaches and methods.\"\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 0. Communicator (general)\
**Audience Role, Ethnicity, & Gender**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication:** 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Form of risk information**: 0. Format (general)\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Keeney, R. L.; von Winterfeldt, D.\
**Year**: 1986\
**Title**: Improving risk communication\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 6\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 417-424\
**Summary Sentence**: Provides guidelines for improving risk
communication among risk analysts, the media, and the general public.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Kelly, P. T.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Informational needs of individuals and families with
hereditary cancers\
**Journal**: Seminars in Oncology Nursing\
**Volume**: 8\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 288-292\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses formats for presenting risk information,
plus individual differences and family-specific needs regarding cancer
risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
6. Format\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Kelly, P.T.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Risk counseling for relatives of cancer patients: New
information, new approaches\
**Journal**: Journal of Psychosocial Oncology\
**Volume**: 5\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 65-79\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses cancer risk analysis, a process that
informs relatives of cancer patients about the biological aspects of
cancer, their own cancer risk, and how to cope with a relative\'s
diagnosis.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
11. Severity of outcome\
12. Time course of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Kessler, Seymour; Levine, E.K.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Psychological aspects of genetic counseling. IV. The
subjective assessment of probability\
**Journal**: American Journal of Medical Genetics\
**Volume**: 28\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 361-370\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines perceptions of percentage versus
probability statements that are or are not related to a genetic
counseling situation.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 5. Birth defects

**Author**: Kirscht, John P.\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Process and measurement issues in health risk appraisal\
**Journal**: American Journal of Public Health\
**Volume**: 79\
**Issue**: 12\
**Pages**: 1598-1599\
**Summary Sentence**: Brief review of health risk appraisal articles
appearing in a special issue of the American Journal of Public Health.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Kline, Mark J.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Evaluating risk communication programs: The development of a
catalogue of \"quick and easy\" feedback methods\
**University**: Rutgers U, Graduate School of Applied & Professional
Psychology, NJ, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 50(10-B), Apr 1990,
4773.\
**Publication Type**:

**Author**: Kong, Augustine; Barnett, G. Octo; Mosteller, Frederick;
Youtz, Cleo\
**Year**: 1986\
**Title**: How medical professionals evaluate expressions of
probability\
**Journal**: New England Journal of Medicine\
**Volume**: 315\
**Issue**: 12\
**Pages**: 740-744\
**Summary Sentence**: Assesses the numerical interpretations given by
health professionals to different verbal probability expressions.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
20. Patient (general)\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Kramer, Barnett S.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Matching strength of message to strength of evidence: A
discussion\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 85-87\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses cancer screening counseling and stresses
the importance of including information about the strength of the
scientific evidence in favor of and against screening.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
7. Possible health outcomes\
15. Costs/barriers/losses\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Kreps, Gary L.; O\'Hair, Dan; Clowers, Marsha\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: The influences of human communication on health outcomes\
**Journal**: American Behavioral Scientist\
**Volume**: 38\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 248-256\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the importance of health communication
and its link to health outcomes.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
12. General\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Kreuter, Matthew W.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Dealing with competing and conflicting risks in cancer
communication\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 27-35\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes knowledge about communicating about
multiple competing risks and suggests future research directions.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Content of risk message**: 6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or
hazards)\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Kreuter, Matthew W.; Strecher, Victor J.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Changing inaccurate perceptions of health risk: Results from
a randomized trial\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 56-63\
**Summary Sentence**: Identifies risk perception biases of adult
patients before and after receiving individualized risk feedback.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
17. Other\
20. Patient (general)\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 6. Recall of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 4. Automobile safety\
6. 0 Cancer\
13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke

**Author**: Kulik, James A.; Mahler, Heike I.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Health status, perceptions of risk, and prevention interest
for health and nonhealth problems\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 6\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 15-27\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares risk perceptions of healthy and ill
college students.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
13. Ill-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Lakey, J.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Informing the public about radiation\--the messenger and the
message: 1997 G. William Morgan Lecture\
**Journal**: Health Physics\
**Volume**: 75\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 367-374\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses communicator style and the message
content in the context of radiation risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 3. Lecture\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
14. Other\
19. General information about hazard\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Lantz, P. M.; Stencil, D.; Lippert, M. T.; Beversdorf, S.;
Jaros, L.; Remington, P. L.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Breast and cervical cancer screening in a low-income managed
care sample: The efficacy of physician letters and phone calls
\[published erratum appears in Am J Public Health 1995 Aug;85(8 Pt
1):1063\]\
**Journal**: American Journal of Public Health\
**Volume**: 85\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 834-836\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of a physician reminder letter
and follow-up phone call on low-income women\'s breast and cervical
cancer screening behavior.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 9. Telephone\
12. Other\
21. Letter\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
18. Reminder\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer\
6. 2 Cervical cancer

**Author**: Lapham, Sandra C.; Henley, Eric; Kleyboecker, Kim\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Prenatal behavioral risk screening by computer among Native
Americans\
**Journal**: Family Medicine\
**Volume**: 25\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 197-202\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates an interactive computer behavioral risk
screening and education program for pregnant women.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 5. Native American\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 1. Alcohol\
5. Birth defects\
8. Drug abuse

**Author**: Lash, A. A.; Kumekawa, E. S.; Becker, C. E.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Evaluating the clarity of research reports written for
research subjects\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 211-219\
**Summary Sentence**: Studies research participants\' knowledge before
and after receiving information on solvent exposure.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
7. Possible health outcomes\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Lerman, C.; Lustbader, E.; Rimer, B.; Daly, M.; Miller, S.;
Sands, C.; Balshem, A.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Effects of individualized breast cancer risk counseling: A
randomized trial\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute\
**Volume**: 87\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 286-292\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares the effects of a standardized program of
individualized breast cancer risk counseling to those of a program of
general health risk information.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
3. Caucasian\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
14. Other\
19. General information about hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Lerman, C.; Narod, S.; Schulman, K.; Hughes, C.; Gomez-
Caminero, A.; Bonney, G.; Gold, K.; Trock, B.; Main, D.; Lynch, J.;
Fulmore, C.; Snyder, C.; Lemon, S. J.; Conway, T.; Tonin, P.; Lenoir,
G.; Lynch, H.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: BRCA1 testing in families with hereditary breast-ovarian
cancer. A prospective study of patient decision making and outcomes
\[see comments\]\
**Journal**: Journal of the American Medical Association\
**Volume**: 275\
**Issue**: 24\
**Pages**: 1885-1892\
**Summary Sentence**: Identifies predictors of obtaining cancer
screening test results and participation in a testing program.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
9. Telephone\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
8. Possible psychosocial outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
21. Test results\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
13. Actual testing/screening\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
19. Intended treatment behavior 21. Other\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer 6. 1 Breast cancer 6. 3 Ovarian cancer

**Author**: Lerman, Caryn; Rimer, Barbara K.; Engstrom, Paul F.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Cancer risk notification: Psychosocial and ethical
implications\
**Journal**: Journal of Clinical Oncology\
**Volume**: 9 **Issue**: 7\
**Pages**: 1275-1282\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews research on worker notification and cancer
genetics to examine the psychosocial impact of cancer risk
notification.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Lerman, Caryn; Schwartz, Marc D.; Lin, Ting Hsiang; Hughes,
Chanita; et al.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: The influence of psychological distress on use of genetic
testing for cancer risk\
**Journal**: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology\
**Volume**: 65\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 414-420\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of individual difference
variables (demographics, objective risk, and worry) and an education
session on at-risk adults\' decisions to have BRAC1 testing (hereditary
breast ovarian cancer).\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
14. Other\
15. Costs/barriers/losses\
17. Skill building/instructions\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Lerman, Caryn; Schwartz, Mark D.; Miller, Suzanne M.; Daly,
Mary; Sands, Colleen; Rimer, Barbara K.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: A randomized trial of breast cancer risk counseling:
Interacting effects of counseling, educational level, and coping style\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 75-83\
**Summary Sentence**: Compare an individualized counseling program with
a general health education program in terms of reducing levels of
distress about breast cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
3. Interactive\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Leventhal, Howard; Kelly, Kim; Leventhal, Elaine A.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Population risk, actual risk, perceived risk, and cancer
control: A discussion\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 81-85\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the difficulties involved in using
population risk to estimate personal risk, and suggests using a self-
regulatory framework to understand perceptions of personal
vulnerability.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 0. Audience role (general)\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Levine, Jeffrey\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Risky business\--Communicating scientific findings to the
public\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 163-166\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses reasons that health risks are often
misrepresented in the media and difficulties overcoming
misrepresentations.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 0. Communicator (general)\
4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
14. Media\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Leviton, L. C.; Chen, H. T.; Marsh, G. M.; Talbott, E. O.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Evaluation issues in the Drake Chemical Workers Notification
and Health Registry Study\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 197-204\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines a worker notification program and uses it
to illustrate evaluation issues in risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
4. Channel\
7. Outcome\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
7. Radio\
9. Telephone\
10. TV\
12. Other\
21. Letter\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6.13 Other cancer\
6.11 Bladder cancer\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Liberman, Akiva; Chaiken, Shelly\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages\
**Journal**: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\
**Volume**: 18\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 669-679\
**Summary Sentence**: Exposes high- or low-threat messages to subjects
for whom the message is relevant or not relevant and examines how such
messages are processed.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: College student/Graduate student\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
2. Comprehension of message\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 1 Breast cancer\
20. Other

**Author**: Lieberman, Debra\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: The computer\'s potential role in health education\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 211-225\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the role of computer technology in the
delivery of health education.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge

**Author**: Lipkus, Isaac M.; Biradavolu, Monica; Fenn, Kathryn; Keller,
Punam; Rimer, Barbara K.\
**Year**: 2000\
**Title**: Informing women about their breast cancer risks: Truth and
consequences\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 13\
**Issue**: 2\
**Summary Sentence**: Tests effects of personalized information about
absolute risk versus comparative risk for breast cancer on accuracy of
risk perceptions, emotional response to the message, and intended
mammography use.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
14. Other\
22. Personalized information\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Lipkus, Isaac M.; Crawford, Yancey; Penn, Kathryn;
Biradavolu, Monica; Binder, Ruth Ann; Marcus, Al; Mason, Mondi\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Testing different formats for communicating colorectal cancer
risk\
**Journal**: Journal of Health Communication\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 311-324\
**Summary Sentence**: Investigates effects of information about the
likelihood of colorectal cancer compared to other cancers and
information about risk factors for colorectal cancer on absolute risk
perceptions, intended screening, and other responses.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6.12 Colon cancer

**Author**: Lipkus, Isaac M.; Holland, J.G.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: The visual communication of risk\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 149-163\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the use of visual displays in risk
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Lippman-Hand, A.; Fraser, F. C.\
**Year**: 1979\
**Title**: Genetic counseling: provision and reception of information\
**Journal**: American Journal of Medical Genetics\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 113-127\
**Summary Sentence**: Qualitative interview data was used to examine
parents\' understanding of their risk of having a child with birth
defects.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 5. Birth defects

**Author**: Lippman-Hand, A.; Fraser, F. C.\
**Year**: 1979\
**Title**: Genetic counseling - The postcounseling period: 1. Parents\'
perceptions of uncertainty\
**Journal**: American Journal of Medical Genetics\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 51-71\
**Summary Sentence**: Interviews prospective parents about their
interpretations of risk information provided in genetic counseling.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 10. At risk/exposed-parent of child\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 5. Birth defects

**Author**: Llewellyn-Thomas, H.A.; Williams, J.I.; Levy, L.; Naylor,
C.D.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Using a trade-off technique to assess patients\' treatment
preferences for benign prostatic hyperplasia\
**Journal**: Medical Decision Making\
**Volume**: 16\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 262-272\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates the effectiveness of a decision aid for
benign prostatic hyperplasia patients.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 10. Decision aid\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 13. Ill-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 2. Male\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid\
**Outcomes**: 19. Intended treatment behavior\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: MacGregor, D. G.; Slovic, P.; Morgan, M. G.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Perception of risks from electromagnetic fields: A
psychometric evaluation of a risk-communication approach\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 815-828\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of a brochure about
electromagnetic fields and associated risks on risk perceptions and
attitudes.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not
pollutants)\
20. Other

**Author**: Mahler, Heike I. M.; Fitzpatrick, Betsy; Parker, Patricia;
Lapin, Angela\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: The relative effects of a health-based versus an appearance-
based intervention designed to increase sunscreen use\
**Journal**: American Journal of Health Promotion\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 426-429\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of appearance-focused or
health- focused slide-show on participants\' intentions to use and
actual use of sunscreen.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 12. Other\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 5 Skin cancer

**Author**: Maibach, Edward\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Cancer risk communication\--What we need to learn\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 179-181\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses research priorities in the field of risk
communication, including understanding underlying processes of risk
communication, theory-based research in real-world contexts, and
fostering adoption of \"best practices\" in cancer risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
8. Measurement/evaluation\
11. Multiple\
**Audience Role**: 0. Audience role (general)\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 0. Channels (general)\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Maibach, E.; Holtgrave, D. R.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Advances in public health communication\
**Journal**: Annual Review of Public Health\
**Volume**: 16\
**Pages**: 219-238\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses how social marketing, risk
communication, behavioral decision theory, entertainment education,
media advocacy, and interactive decision support systems can be used in
health communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Channels of risk communication**: 2. Internet (listserves, web pages)\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Maisels, M.J.; Haynes, B.; Conrad, S.; Chez, R. A.\
**Year**: 1983\
**Title**: Circumcision. The effect of information on parental decision
making.\
**Journal**: Pediatrics\
**Volume**: 71\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 453-45\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates the effects of providing prospective
mothers with information about the risks of circumcision.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Malenka, D. J.; Baron, J. A.; Johansen, S.; Wahrenberger, J.
W.; Ross, J. M.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: The framing effect of relative and absolute risk\
**Journal**: Journal of General Internal Medicine\
**Volume**: 8\
**Issue**: 10\
**Pages**: 543-548\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares patients preference for treatment
information (for a hypothetical disease) presented using relative versus
absolute terms.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
12. Other\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 19. Intended treatment behavior\
**Hazard**: 14. Hypothetical risk

**Author**: Mandel, I. D.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Communicating science to our patients and the public\
**Journal**: Journal of the American College of Dentists\
**Volume**: 61\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 24-28\
**Summary Sentence**: Provides guidelines for communicating dental
information to the general public.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
8. Non-governmental organization (e.g., Am. Lung Assoc.)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 3. Lecture\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
21. Dental issues

**Author**: Marcus, Alfred C.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: New directions for risk communication research: A discussion
with additional suggestions\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 35-42\
**Summary Sentence**: Suggests new directions for research on risk
communication, including research on strategies to increase risk
perception accuracy, the sociology of risk communication, and the
effectiveness of risk communication as a strategy to change behavior.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
8. Measurement/evaluation\
11. Multiple\
**Setting**: 11. Home\
**Channels of risk communication**: 0. Channels (general)\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Outcomes**: 0. Outcomes (general)\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)\
2. Measurement (studies of different response formats)

**Author**: Marcus, A. C.; Crane, L. A.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: A review of cervical cancer screening intervention research:
Implications for public health programs and future research\
**Journal**: Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 27\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 13-31\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews research on cervical cancer intervention
programs with an emphasis on channels of communication.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
9. Telephone\
10. TV\
12. Other\
22. Community meetings/community groups\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 2 Cervical cancer

**Author**: Marris, C.; Langford, I.; Saunderson, T.; O\'Riordan, T.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Exploring the \"psychometric paradigm\": Comparisons between
aggregate and individual analyses\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 17\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 303-312\
**Summary Sentence**: Studies lay people\'s risk perceptions, comparing
an aggregate level of analysis with an individual level of analysis.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 10. Other\
11. Home\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Mazur, D. J.; Hickam, D. H.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Patients\' interpretations of probability terms\
**Journal**: Journal of General Internal Medicine\
**Volume**: 6\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 237-240\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares patients\' preferences for numerical
versus qualitative presentations of medical risk information.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: McCallum, D. B.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Risk communication: A tool for behavior change\
**Journal**: NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) Research Monograph\
**Volume**: 155\
**Pages**: 65-89\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents a how-to guide on effective risk
communication including establishing goals, understanding the risk and
target audience, improving message delivery, and evaluating
effectiveness.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
4. Channel\
12. General\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: McCallum, David B.; Hammond, Sharon L.; Covello, Vincent T.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Communicating about environmental risks: How the public uses
and perceives information sources\
**Journal**: Health Education Quarterly\
**Volume**: 18\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 349-361\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports survey results assessing community
members\' regard for risk information sources and channels.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
4. Channel\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 1. Authority figure (non-expert)\
2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
8. Non-governmental organization (e.g., Am. Lung Assoc.)\
11. Peer/community member (not affected)\
13. Other\
14. Media\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
6. Recall of message\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: McCaul, Kevin D.; Branstetter, Ann D.; O\'Donnell, Susan M.;
Jacobson, Kimberly; Quinlan, Kathryn B.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: A descriptive study of breast cancer worry\
**Journal**: Journal of Behavioral Medicine\
**Volume**: 21\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 565-579\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes the thoughts and concerns regarding
breast cancer of women with and without a family history of breast
cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
5. Adult\
9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
17. Skill building/instructions\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
13. Actual testing/screening\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: McCaul, Kevin D.; Branstetter, Ann Dyche; Schroeder, Dawn
M.; Glasgow, Russell E.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: What is the relationship between breast cancer risk and
mammography screening? A meta-analytic review\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 423-429\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents a meta-analysis of the relationships
between the risk perceptions of women with and without a family history
of breast cancer and their breast cancer screening.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: McCaul, Kevin D.; Thiesse-Duffy, Ellyn; Wilson, Paula\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Coping with medical diagnosis: The effects of at-risk versus
disease labels over time\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 22\
**Issue**: 17\
**Pages**: 1340-1355\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of test results on mood, risk
perceptions, and preventive behavior regarding gum disease.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
14. Other\
21. Test results\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
21. Dental issues

**Author**: McCaul, Kevin D.; Tulloch, Heather E.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Cancer screening decisions\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 52-58\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews factors that influence adherence to cancer
screening, including physician prompts, perceived cancer risk, cancer
worry, and costs and benefits of screening.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Content of risk message**: 15. Costs/barriers/losses\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: McDaniels, T.; Axelrod, L.; Slovic, P.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Characterizing perception of ecological risk\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 575-588\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines perceptions of risk to the natural
environment.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not pollutants)

**Author**: McLeroy, Kenneth R.\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Issues in risk communication\
**Journal**: Health Education Research\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 169-171\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses challenges and goals of risk
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: McMahan, Shari; Witte, Kim; Meyer, Jon a\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: The perception of risk messages regarding electromagnetic
fields: Extending the extended parallel process model to an unknown
risk\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 247-259\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of low and high threat risk
messages about electromagnetic fields on attitudes, intentions, and
behaviors.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Melvin, Robert Douglas\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: The communication of risk: A grounded model\
**University**: U Denver, CO, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 54(5-A), 1993,
1596.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: Meyerowitz, B. E.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Assessing quality of life when planning and evaluating worker
notification programs: Two case examples\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 221-227\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents two case studies of the psychological
outcomes of medical risk notifications.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Michie, Susan; French, David; Allanson, Abi; Bobrow, Martin;
Marteau, Theresa M.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Information recall in genetic counselling: A pilot study of
its assessment\
**Journal**: Patient Education and Counseling\
**Volume**: 32\
**Issue**: 1-2\
**Pages**: 93-100\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the accuracy of Genetic counselor\'s
summary letters of counseling sessions have better recall of different
parts of the session.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 6. Other\
7. Oral/spoken\
**Outcomes**: 6. Recall of message\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
20. Other

**Author**: Mitchell, J. V.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Perception of risk and credibility at toxic sites\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 12\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 19-26\
**Summary Sentence**: Studies risk perceptions of agency and residential
groups involved in Superfund planning and their views of the credibility
of information sources.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Morgan, M. G.; Fischhoff, B. ; Bostrom, A.; Lave, L.; Atman,
C.J.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Communicating risk to the public\
**Journal**: Environment, Science and Technology\
**Volume**: 26\
**Issue**: 11\
**Pages**: 2048-2056\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes the development of radon information
brochures designed to fill in gaps in lay people\'s mental models.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
7. Possible health outcomes\
12. Time course of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)\
6. 9 Lung cancer

**Editor**: Morris, Louis A.; Mazis, Michael B.; Barofsky, Ivan\
**Year**: 1980\
**Title**: Banbury Report 6: Product Labeling and Health Risks\
**Series Title**: Banbury Report Series\
**City**: Cold Spring Harbor, NY\
**Publisher**: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory\
**Number of Pages**: 328\
**Summary Sentence**: Book based on a conference on product labeling and
health risks, with sections entitled \"Labeling case studies,\"
\"Labeling as a communication device,\" and \"Labeling as a social
policy.\" It contains specific recommendations for effectively
communicating risks through product labels.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
13. Other\
**Channels of risk communication:** 24. Product label/packaging\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Mossman, K. L.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Radiation risk communication in human subjects research
\[letter; comment\]\
**Journal**: Health Physics\
**Volume**: 70\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 749-750\
**Summary Sentence**: Letter to the editor discussing most acceptable
formats to use to explain radiation risks in human research.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Mullet, E.; Duquesnoy, C.; Raiff, P.; Fahrasmane, R.; Namur,
E.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: The evaluative factor of risk perception\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 23\
**Pages**: 1594-1605\
**Summary Sentence**: Identifies an evaluative factor in perceived risk
that is independent of dread and knowledge and that predicts subjects'
demands for risk control legislation.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Myers, R. E.; Trock, B. J.; Lerman, C.; Wolf, T.; Ross, E.;
Engstrom, P. F.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Adherence to colorectal cancer screening in an HMO
population\
**Journal**: Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 19\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 502-514\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines psychological predictors of adherence to
colorectal cancer screening and offers recommendations for risk
communicators.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6.12 Colon cancer

**Author**: Myrick, Roger\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: In search of cultural sensitivity and inclusiveness:
Communication strategies sued in rural HIV prevention campaigns designed
for African Americans\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 65-85\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines health communication strategies in HIV
prevention programs designed for African-Americans in rural Alabama.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
21. Other\
24. Community or public response\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: National_Cancer_Institute\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: How the public perceives, processes, and interprets risk
information: Findings from focus group research with the general public\
**City**: Bethesda, MD\
**Institutional Author**: National Cancer Institute\
**Pages**: 57\
**Date**: June, 1998\
**Summary Sentence**: The Office of Cancer Communication examined how
adults perceive, process, and interpret cancer risk information via
focus groups.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
28. Information/communication preferences\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer\
6. 5 Skin cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer

**Author**: National_Research_Council\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Improving risk communication\
**City**: Washington, DC\
**Publisher**: National Academy Press\
**Number of Pages**: xvii, 332\
**ISBN**: 0-309-03946-0 (hardcover), 0-309-03943-6 (paperback)\
**Summary Sentence**: A broad overview of risk communication with
particular attention to communication goals, context, policy, conflict,
and uncertainty.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Audience Role**: 0. Audience Role (general)\
**Setting**: 0. Setting (general)\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Outcomes**: 0. Outcomes (general)\
**Hazard**: 0. Hazard (general)

**Author**: Naylor, C.D.; Chen, E.; Strauss, B.\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Measured enthusiasm: Does the method of reporting trial
results alter perceptions of therapeutic effectiveness?\
**Journal**: Annals of Internal Medicine\
**Volume**: 117\
**Issue**: 11\
**Pages**: 916-921\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of formats for presenting
risk likelihood on health professionals\' estimates of treatment
effectiveness for heart disease.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke

**Author**: Needleman, C.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Social aspects of high-risk notification among chromium-
exposed workers\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 113-123\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports results of a survey of workers who
received risk information about their chromium exposure.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
6. Recall of message\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6.13 Other cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Needleman, C.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Worker notification: Lessons from the past\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 11-23\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses six landmark worker notification studies
from the 1970\'s and 1980\'s to identify ways of improving risk
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
3. Setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
17. Smoking

**Author**: Neil, N.; Malmfors, T.; Slovic, P.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Intuitive toxicology: Expert and lay judgments of chemical
risks\
**Journal**: Toxicologic Pathology\
**Volume**: 22\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 198-201\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports survey of experts and lay people
concerning opinions about chemical toxicology.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Ng, K. L.; Hamby, D. M.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Fundamentals for establishing a risk communication program\
**Journal**: Health Physics\
**Volume**: 73\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 473-482\
**Summary Sentence**: Provides recommendations for effective risk
communication programs.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
4. Channel\
11. Multiple\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
8. Non-governmental organization (e.g., Am. Lung Assoc.)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 2. Internet (listserves, web pages)\
4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
9. Telephone, 10. TV, 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Nisbett, Richard E.; Fong, Geoffrey T.; Lehman, Darrin R.;
Cheng, Patricia W.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Teaching reasoning\
**Journal**: Science\
**Volume**: 238\
**Issue**: 4827\
**Pages**: 625-631\
**Summary Sentence**: Proposes that reasoning regarding logic and
statistics can be taught and supports this proposition with data on
college students and adults.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
5. Adult\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
21. Other

**Author**: Noell, John; Ary, Dennis; Duncan, Terry\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Development and evaluation of a sexual decision-making and
social skills program: \"The choice is yours\-- preventing HIV/STDs.\"\
**Journal**: Health Education and Behavior\
**Volume**: 24\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 87-101\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents and tests the effectiveness of a series
of interactive video programs designed to reduce HIV/STD risk
behaviors.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 2. Child/Pre-teen\
3. Teen\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
3. Caucasian\
4. Hispanic\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: O\'Brien, Paul William\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Aftershock warnings following the Loma Prieta earthquake: A
theoretical assessment\
**University**: Colorado State U, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 53(9-A), Mar 1993,
3374.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: O\'Connor, A.M.; Fiset, V.; DeGrasse, Catherine ; Graham,
Ian D.; Evans, William; Stacey, Dawn ; Laupacis, Andreas; Tugwell,
Peter\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Decision aids for patients considering options affecting
cancer outcomes: Evidence of efficacy and policy implications\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 67-80\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews research documenting the efficacy of
decision aids and makes policy and research recommendations.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
10. Decision aid\
**Audience Role**: 20. Patient (general)\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
14. Other\
15. Costs/barriers/losses\
16. Benefits/gains\
20. General information about recommended action\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid\
**Outcomes**: 10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
14. Actual treatment behavior\
21. Other\
28. Information/communication preferences\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: O\'Connor, Annette M.; Tugwell, Peter; Wells, George A.;
Elmslie, Tom; Jolly, Elaine; Hollingworth, Garry; McPherson, Ruth; Bunn,
Helen; Graham, Ian; Drake, Elizabeth\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after
menopause: Decision support framework and evaluation\
**Journal**: Patient Education and Counseling\
**Volume**: 33\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 267-279\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of a hormone replacement
therapy decision aid on post-menopausal women\'s knowledge,
expectations, certainty, and intentions to use this therapy.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 10. Decision aid\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
12. Other\
23. Audiotape\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
19. Intended treatment behavior , 21. Other\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: O\'Connor, A. M.; Tugwell, P.; Wells, G. A.; Elmslie, T.;
Jolly, E.; Hollingworth, G.; McPherson, R.; Drake, E.; Hopman, W.;
Mackenzie, T.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Randomized trial of a portable, self-administered decision
aid for postmenopausal women considering long-term preventive hormone
therapy\
**Journal**: Medical Decision Making\
**Volume**: 18\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 295-303\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of a decision aid versus an
informational pamphlet on post-menopausal women\'s decision regarding
hormone replacement therapy.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
27. Information processing/decision-making process\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: O\'Connor, A. M.; Pennie, R. A.; Dales, R. E.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects
experienced: The case of influenza immunization \[published erratum
appears in J Clin Epidemiol 1997 Jun;50(6):747-8\]\
**Journal**: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\
**Volume**: 49\
**Issue**: 11\
**Pages**: 1271-1276\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of positive or negative
framing of a vaccination message on patients\' decisions to get an
influenza vaccine.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
6. Other\
7. Oral/spoken\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
13. Actual testing/screening\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 12. Other infectious diseases (e.g., Lyme disease)\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: O\'Connor, A.; Tugwell, P.; Wells, G.; Elmslie, T.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Do decision aids help postmenopausal women considering
preventive hormone replacement therapy (HRT) (abstract)\
**Journal**: Medical Decision Making\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 433\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of a decision aid on
post-menopausal women\'s feelings of knowledge, certainty,
costs/benefits, and conflict regarding decisions about hormone
replacement therapy.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 10. Decision aid\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Decision aid\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, or handouts\
12. Other\
23. Audiotape\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
14. Other\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
24. Menopause

**Author**: O\'Connor, A. M.; Perrault, D. J.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Importance of physician\'s role highlighted in survey of
women\'s breast screening practices\
**Journal**: Canadian Journal of Public Health/Revue Canadienne de Sante
Publique\
**Volume**: 86\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 42-45\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines breast cancer screening attitudes,
knowledge, and intentions.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
9. Telephone\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: O\'Hair, Dan\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Dimensions of relational communication and control during
physician\--patient interactions\
**Journal**: Health Communication\
**Volume**: 1\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 97-115\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines communication among physician-patient
dyads using the relational communication framework.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
20. Patient (general)\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Oppenheim, P.I.; Sotiropoulos, G.; Baraff, L.J.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Incorporating patient preferences into practice guidelines:
Management of children with fever without source\
**Journal**: Annals of Emergency Medicine\
**Volume**: 24\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 836-841\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines parents\' treatment preferences when
their young children have a fever without a source.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
14. Ill-parent of ill child\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 4. Expense of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
19. Intended treatment behavior\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 12. Other infectious diseases (e.g., Lyme disease)

**Author**: Osei, E. K.; Amoh, G. E.; Schandorf, C.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Risk ranking by perception\
**Journal**: Health Physics\
**Volume**: 72\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 195-203\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports survey data on Ghana residents\' ranking
of different technological risks and summarized some of the main factors
that influence people\'s risk perceptions.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Owens, R.G.; Ashcroft, J.J.; Leinster, S.J.; Slade, P.D.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Informal decision analysis with breast cancer patients: An
aid to psychological preparation for surgery\
**Journal**: Journal of Psychosocial Oncology\
**Volume**: 5\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 23-33\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the use of \"informal decision analysis\"
on women\'s decisions and feelings toward breast cancer treatment.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 13. Ill-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
14. Other\
16. Benefits/gains\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
21. Other\
27. Information processing/decision-making process\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Page, Stephen D.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Indoor radon: A case study in risk communication\
**Journal**: American Journal of Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 3 Suppl\
**Pages**: 15-18\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the challenges of risk communication,
including how to choose the environmental risks to focus on.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 12. General\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
3. Definition of hazard\
9. Preventability of hazard\
14. Other\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer\
6.13 Other cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Editor**: Parrott, Roxanne Louiselle; Condit, Celeste Michelle\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Evaluating women\'s health messages: A resource book\
**City**: Thousand Oaks, CA\
**Publisher**: Sage Publications, Inc.\
**Number of Pages**: xiv, 445\
**ISBN**: 0-7619-0056-X (hardcover), 0-7619-0057-8 (paperback)\
**Summary Sentence**: Overview of practices and challenges in
communication about women\'s reproductive health. The book is organized
into sections covering different approaches to communication (e.g., the
social support framework, the campaign perspective), and within the
sections each chapter deals with a specific reproductive health issue
(e.g., prenatal care, cervical cancer).\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 12. General\
**Audience Role, Ethnicity, & Gender**: 1. Female\
**Hazard**: 20. Other

**Author**: Patrick, Kevin\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Prevention, public health, and interactive health
communication\
**Journal**: American Journal of Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 16\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 46-47\
**Summary Sentence**: Introduces articles on interactive health
communication stimulated by the activities of the Science Panel on
Interactive Communication and Health.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
12. General\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
2. Internet (listserves, web pages)\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Pavlova, M. T.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Superfund and one community program\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 183-189\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses a case study of a risk communication and
notification program.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Paystrup, Patricia\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: The wolf at Yellowstone\'s door: Extending and applying the
cultural approach to risk communication to an endangered species
recovery plan controversy\
**University**: Purdue U, IN, USA\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities &
Social Sciences. Vol 54(9-A), 1994, 3252.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: Pearn, J.H.\
**Year**: 1973\
**Title**: Patients\' subjective interpretation of risks offered in
genetic counseling\
**Journal**: Journal of Medical Genetics\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 129-134\
**Summary Sentence**: Discussion of patients\' understanding of genetic
risks, in particular risk of birth defects, and the effects of factors
such as severity, time, and personality on comprehension.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
**Hazard**: 5. Birth defects

**Author**: Perloff, R. M.; Pettey, G.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Designing an AIDS information campaign to reach intravenous
drug users and sex partners\
**Journal**: Public Health Reports\
**Volume**: 106\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 460-463\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes a multimedia campaign aimed at educating
IV drug users about the etiology and prevention of AIDS and offers
suggestions about effective risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
12. Other\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 11. Actual information seeking behavior\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Peters, R. G.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: A study of the factors determining perceptions of trust and
credibility in environmental risk communication: The importance of
overcoming negative stereotypes\
**Journal**: International Archives of Occupational and Environmental
Health\
**Volume**: 68\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 442-447\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines trust and perceived credibility of
industry, government, and citizen groups in environmental risk
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
1. Communicator\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Peters, R. G.; Covello, V. T.; McCallum, D. B.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental
risk communication: An empirical study\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 17\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 43-54\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines trust and perceived credibility of
industry, government, and citizen groups in environmental risk
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Pistella, Christine L. Young; Bonati, Frank A.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Communication about sexual behavior among adolescent women,
their family and peers\
**Journal**: Families in Society\
**Volume**: 79\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 206-211\
**Summary Sentence**: Surveys female adolescent patients in a family
planning clinic about their communications with family, and peers
concerning reproductive health.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 9. Parent\
11. Peer/community member (not affected)\
**Audience Role**: 3. Teen\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
3. Caucasian\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs\
20. Other

**Author**: Quaid, K.A.; Faden, R.R.; Vining, E.P.; Freeman, J.M.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Informed consent for a prescription drug: Impact of disclosed
information on patient understanding and medical outcomes\
**Journal**: Patient Education and Counseling\
**Volume**: 15\
**Pages**: 249-259\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines relationships between providing full
information about a seizure drug and patients\' anxiety, recall, and
risk perceptions.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
10. At risk/exposed-parent of child\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
14. Other\
16. Benefits/gains\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
6. Recall of message\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Raghubir, Priya; Menon, Geeta\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: AIDS and me, never the twain shall meet: The effects of
information accessibility on judgments of risk and advertising
effectiveness\
**Journal**: Journal of Consumer Research\
**Volume**: 25\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 52-63\
**Summary Sentence**: Manipulates the accessibility of information about
causes of AIDS to examine impacts on risk perception and responses to a
safe sex advertisement.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 12. Unspecified\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 2. Asian\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Rakowski, William; Ehrich, Beverly; Goldstein, Michael G.;
Rimer, Barbara K.; Pearlman, Deborah N.; Clark, Melissa A.; Velicer,
Wayne F.; Woolverton, Hugh, III\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Increasing mammography among women aged 40-74 by use of a
stage-matched, tailored intervention\
**Journal**: Preventive Medicine: An International Devoted to Practice
and Theory\
**Volume**: 27\
**Issue**: 5 Pt 1\
**Pages**: 748-756\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares ability of a tailored intervention
matched to women\'s stage-of-adoption to increase mammography use to
that of nonmatched interventions.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
9. Preventability of hazard\
22. Personalized information\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Ratzan, Scott C.; Payne, J. Gregory; Massett, Holly A.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Effective health message design: The America Responds to AIDS
campaign\
**Journal**: American Behavioral Scientist\
**Volume**: 38\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 294-309\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses a model of health communication (COAST)
and uses it to analyze a mass media campaign on AIDS.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
4. Channel\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Regan, Michael J.; Desvousges, William H.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Communicating environmental risks: A guide to practical
evaluations\
**City**: Washington, DC\
**Institutional Author**: Environmental Protection Agency\
**Report Number**: EPA 230-01-91-001\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents a step-by-step practical guide on how to
evaluate the effectiveness of environmental risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
21. Other professionals and experts\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Renner, Britta\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Psychological effects of health risk communication\
**URL:** http://userpage-fu.berlin.de/\~prague/brahms/mexico.htm\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of expectations and
cholesterol test results on perceived severity of risk and perceived
pressure to change behavior.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 7. Other\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
21. Test results\
**Outcomes**: 8. Risk perception-severity\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke\
20. Other

**Author**: Renz, Mary Ann\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Communicating about environmental risk: An examination of a
Minnesota county\'s communication on incineration\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Communication Research\
**Volume**: 20\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 1-18\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the
communication process that occurred in Winona County, Minnesota when the
public was deciding on a proposed incinerator.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
21. Other\
24. Community or public response\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Reynolds, Kim D.; West, Stephen G.; Aiken, Leona S.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Increasing the use of mammography: A pilot program\
**Journal**: Health Education Quarterly\
**Volume**: 17\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 429-441\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates two programs designed to increase
mammography use.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 3. Caucasian\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 8. Small groups/focus groups\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
11. Severity of outcome\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Outcomes**: 11. Actual information seeking behavior\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Richards, M. P. M.; Hallowell, N.; Green, J. M.; Murton, F.;
Statham, H.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Counseling families with hereditary breast and ovarian
cancer: A psychosocial perspective\
**Journal**: Journal of Genetic Counseling\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 219-233\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses key elements of genetic counseling.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer\
6. 2 Cervical cancer

**Author**: Rimer, B. K.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Putting the \"informed\" in informed consent about
mammography \[editorial; comment\]\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute\
**Volume**: 87\
**Issue**: 10\
**Pages**: 703-704\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses controversies involving mammography
screening.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Rohrmann, Bernd\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Analyzing and evaluating the effectiveness of risk
communication programs\
**Journal**: Studies on Risk Communication\
**Volume**: 17\
**Pages**: 1-26\
**Summary Sentence**: Advises researchers how to conduct content,
process, and outcome evaluations of risk communication efforts.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Rohrmann, Bernd\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: The evaluation of risk communication effectiveness\
**Journal**: Acta Psychologica\
**Volume**: 81\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 169-192\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses taxonomies for risk communications and
prescribes appropriate evaluation procedures.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Rook, Karen S.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Effects of case history versus abstract information on health
attitudes and behaviors\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 17\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 533-553\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares the influence of health information
presented in abstract versus case study forms on women\'s attitudes,
affect, and behavioral intentions regarding osteoporosis.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
5. Health care setting\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
25. Osteoporosis

**Author**: Rothert, Marilyn L.; Holmes-Rovner, Margaret; Rovner, David;
Kroll, Jill; Breer, Lynn; Talarczyk, Geraldine; Schmitt, Neal; Padonu,
Georgia; Wills, Celia\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: An educational intervention as decision support for
menopausal women\
**Journal**: Research in Nursing and Health\
**Volume**: 20\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 377-387\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares the effectiveness of three intervention
formats used to inform women about menopause and hormone replacement
therapy.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content 6. Format 10. Decision aid\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 3. Caucasian\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Channels of risk communication**: 3. Lecture 4. One-on-one
(face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires 8.
Small groups/focus groups\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
7. Possible health outcomes\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge 5. Psychological
distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
14. Actual treatment behavior 21. Other\
23. Perceptions of efficacy/control\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer 13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks 24. Menopause 25. Osteoporosis

**Author**: Rothman, Alexander J.; Kiviniemi, Marc T.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Treating people with information: An analysis and review of
approaches to communicating health risk information\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 44-51\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews risk communication and risk perception
literature to evaluate different approaches to risk communication and
the criteria used to identify effective messages **Publication
Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Rothman, Alexander J.; Salovey, Peter\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of
message framing\
**Journal**: Psychological Bulletin\
**Volume**: 121\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 3-19\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses and reviews literature on the framing of
persuasive health messages as benefits or as costs.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
6. Laboratory\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
15. Costs/barriers/losses\
16. Benefits/gains\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
19. Intended treatment behavior\
20. Intended other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Rothman, Alexander J.; Salovey, Peter; Antone, Carol;
Keough, Kelli; Martin, Chloe Drake\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: The influence of message framing on intentions to perform
health behaviors\
**Journal**: Journal of Experimental Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 29\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 408-433\
**Summary Sentence**: Tests the effects of positively versus negatively
framed messages about skin cancer on attitudes toward prevention and
detection.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 3. Caucasian\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
2. Communication style\
3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical 5. Text-verbal 6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 5 Skin cancer

**Author**: Rowan, F.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: The high stakes of risk communication\
**Journal**: Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 25\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 26-29\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the difficulties of risk communication
and offers two examples (oxygenates in gasoline and public smoking).\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
14. Other\
19. General information about hazard\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
17. Smoking

**Author**: Rowan, Katherine E.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Why rules for risk communication are not enough: A
problem-solving approach to risk communication\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 365-374\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents a problem-solving approach to more
effective risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
21. Other\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Royak-Schaler, Renee; Cheuvront, Brian; Wilson, Kenneth R.;
Williams, Claudia M.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Addressing women\'s breast cancer risk and perceptions of
control in medical settings\
**Journal**: Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 185-199\
**Summary Sentence**: Studies African American and white women\'s risk
perceptions of breast cancer, and the implications of these perceptions
for health practitioners who want to provide accurate and sensitive
information about prevention and screening.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
3. Caucasian\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Russell, Cristine\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Implications for improving risk communications through
various channels: A discussion\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 177-178\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews problems and promising developments in
cancer risk communication through various channels, focusing on mass
media.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 0. Communicator (general)\
14. Media\
**Channels of risk communication**: 0. Channels (general)\
1. Computer program (non-internet)\
2. Internet (listserves, web pages)\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
26. Media-general\
**Form of risk information**: 0. Format (general)\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Ryan, Michael; Dunwoody, Sharon; Tankard, James\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Risk information for public consumption: Print media coverage
of two risky situations\
**Journal**: Health Education Quarterly\
**Volume**: 18\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 375-390\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the content and approaches used by the
print media to explain two risk situations.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 13. Other\
14. Media\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
11. Severity of outcome\
12. Time course of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6.10 Pancreatic cancer\
6.13 Other cancer\
16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Salovey, Peter; Birnbaum, Deborah\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Influence of mood on health-relevant cognitions\
**Journal**: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 57\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 539-551\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of a mood induction on
college students\' health beliefs, health expectations, and perceived
vulnerability.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 12. Other infectious diseases (e.g., Lyme disease)\
20. Other

**Author**: Salovey, Peter; Schneider, Tamera R.; Apanovitch, Anne
Marie\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Persuasion for the purpose of cancer risk reduction: A
discussion\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 119-122\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses factors likely to moderate the
relationship between health cognition and health behaviors, and briefly
reviews the persuasion literature and its application to cancer risk
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 0. Communicator (general)\
**Audience Role**: 0. Audience role (general)\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Sandman, Peter M.; Salomone, Kandice L.; Chess, Caron\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: What does the public need to know about environmental risk
and how they should be told\
**Pages**: 114\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents survey results concerning the attitudes
of environmental advocates, educators, and government officials
regarding what the public needs to know and how they should be told
about environmental risk.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
17. Other\
21. Other professionals and experts\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Sandman, Peter M.; Weinstein, Neil D.; Miller, Paul\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: High risk or low: How location on a \"risk ladder\" affects
perceived risk\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 34-45\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of a risk ladder presentation
format on radon and asbestos risk perceptions.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Santos, S. L.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: The role of risk communication in environmental decision-
making \[corrected and republished article originally printed in Cent
Eur J Public Health 1994;2 Suppl:77-9\]\
**Journal**: Central European Journal of Public Health\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 107-109\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the importance of involving the public
in environmental decision-making and presents three case studies and a
how-to guide for effective risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
21. Other\
24. Community or public response\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Santos, S. L.; Covello, V. T.; McCallum, D. B.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Industry response to SARA Title III: Pollution prevention,
risk reduction, and risk communication\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 16\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 57-66\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports industry responses to environmental
legislation that required them to report hazardous chemicals to the
community.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 2. Business/corporation/commercial group\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
10. Other\
**Outcomes**: 21. Other\
26. Corporate response\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Schinke, Steven P.; Schilling, Robert F.; Gilchrist, Lewayne
D.\
**Year**: 1986\
**Title**: Prevention of drug and alcohol abuse in American Indian
youths\
**Journal**: Social Work Research and Abstracts\
**Volume**: 22\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 18-19\
**Summary Sentence**: Assesses drug and alcohol knowledge and behavior
changes of Native American youth following a prevention program.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 1. Authority figure (non-expert)\
13. Other\
**Audience Role**: 2. Child/Pre-teen\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 5. Native American\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 8. Small groups/focus groups\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
7. Possible health outcomes\
8. Possible psychosocial outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 1. Alcohol\
8. Drug abuse

**Author**: Schmidt, F.N.; Gifford, R.\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: A dispositional approach to hazard perception: Preliminary
development of the Environmental Appraisal Inventory\
**Journal**: Journal of Environmental Psychology\
**Volume**: 9\
**Pages**: 57-67\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines adults\' perceptions of threat to self,
threat to environment, and personal control concerning environmental
risks.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 7. Done: coded, entered, and filed\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
16. General public\
**Outcomes**: 9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
21. Other\
23. Perceptions of efficacy/control\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not pollutants)

**Author**: Schulte, P. A.; Boal, W. L.; Friedland, J. M.; Walker, J.
T.; Connally, L. B.; Mazzuckelli, L. F.; Fine, L. J.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Methodologic issues in risk communications to workers\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 3-9\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses issues related to the content, process,
and evaluation of worker risk notification.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
8. Measurement/evaluation\
12. General\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Schwartz, L. M.; Woloshin, S.; Black, W. C.; Welch, H. G.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of
screening mammography\
**Journal**: Annals of Internal Medicine\
**Volume**: 127\
**Issue**: 11\
**Pages**: 966-972\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of women\'s numeracy and the
format of risk information on the accuracy of women\'s risk judgments
regarding benefits of mammography.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
14. Other\
16. Benefits/gains\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Schwartz, Lisa M.; Woloshin, Steven; Welch, H. Gilbert\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Risk communication in clinical practice: Putting cancer into
context\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 124-134\
**Summary Sentence**: Suggests three-part approach to improving cancer
risk communication consisting of office-based tools for physicians,
patient education, and guidelines for risk communicators.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
4. Channel\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 0. Communicator (general)\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
14. Media\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Shaklee, Harriet; Fischhoff, Baruch\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: The psychology of contraceptive surprises: Cumulative risk
and contraceptive effectiveness\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 20\
**Issue**: 5 Pt 2\
**Pages**: 385-403\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines young adults\' perceptions of short and
long term contraceptive risks.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
12. Time course of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Sherman, Steven J.; Cialdini, Robert B.; Schwartzman, Donna
F.; Reynolds, Kim D.\
**Year**: 1985\
**Title**: Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of
contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery\
**Journal**: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 118-127\
**Summary Sentence**: Examined the relationship between ease of
imagining symptoms and likelihood estimates for disease.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 14. Hypothetical risk

**Author**: Shiloh, Shoshana; Berkenstadt, Michal\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Lay conceptions of genetic disorders\
**Editor**: Evers-Kiebooms, Gerry; Fryns, Jean-Pierre\
**Book Title**: Psychosocial Aspects of Genetic Counseling\
**City**: New York, NY\
**Publisher**: Wiley-Liss\
**Volume**: 28\
**Number of Volumes**: 1\
**Pages**: 191-200\
**Series Title**: Birth defects: Original articles series, Vol. 28, No.
1.\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the conceptions held by the general
public about genetic disorders and their effects on the genetic
counseling process.\
**Publication Type** 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role, Ethnicity, & Gender**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation

**Author**: Shiloh, S.; Sagi, M.\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Effect of framing on the perception of genetic recurrence
risks\
**Journal**: American Journal of Medical Genetics\
**Volume**: 33\
**Pages**: 130-135\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines how the way risks are framed influence
the subjects assessment of genetic risks.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 5. Birth defects

**Author**: Siegrist, Michael\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Communicating low risk magnitudes: Incidence rates expressed
as frequency versus rates expressed as probability\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 17\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 507-510\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of presenting rates as
frequencies versus probabilities on willingness to pay for safer
treatments.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 19. Intended treatment behavior\
**Hazard**: 14. Hypothetical risk

**Author**: Siero, Sjef; Kok, Gerjo; Pruyn, Jean\
**Year**: 1984\
**Title**: Effects of public education about breast cancer and breast
self-examination\
**Journal**: Social Science and Medicine\
**Volume**: 18\
**Issue**: 10\
**Pages**: 881-888\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect four persuasive messages about
breast self-examination (BSE) on women\'s knowledge, attitudes,
intentions to, and actual BSE behavior.\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
11. Severity of outcome\
14. Other\
17. Skill building/instructions\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Silka, Linda; Albright, Linda\
**Year**: 1983\
**Title**: Intuitive judgments of rate change: The case of teenage
pregnancies\
**Journal**: Basic and Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 337-352\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the extent to which information about
population size is taken into account in estimating teenage pregnancy
rates from frequency data.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
14. Other\
**Hazard**: 20. Other

**Author**: Simons-Morton, B. G.; Donohew, L.; Crump, A. D.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Health communication in the prevention of alcohol, tobacco,
and drug use\
**Journal**: Health Education and Behavior\
**Volume**: 24\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 544-554\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the role of health communication in the
prevention of substance abuse, different approaches to health
communication, and four programs that target minority audiences.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
12. General\
**Audience Role**: 3. Teen\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 1. Alcohol\
8. Drug abuse\
17. Smoking

**Author**: Skinner, C. S.; Strecher, V. J.; Hospers, H.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Physicians\' recommendations for mammography: Do tailored
messages make a difference?\
**Journal**: American Journal of Public Health\
**Volume**: 84\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 43-49\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates the effects of receiving individualized
breast cancer information in a letter from a physician on women's recall
and screening behavior.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 10. Other\
11. Home\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
22. Personalized information\
**Form of risk information**: 6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Slovic, Paul\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Perception of risk\
**Journal**: Science\
**Volume**: 236\
**Issue**: 4799\
**Pages**: 280-285\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the implications of public response to
hazards on policy-making and risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Slovic, Paul\
**Year**: 1986\
**Title**: Informing and educating the public about risk\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 6\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 403-415\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the limitations of risk assessment,
limitations of public understanding, various formats of presenting risk,
and the media\'s role in risk communication as obstacles to effective
risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
10. TV\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Slovic, Paul; Malmfors, Torbjoern; Krewski, Daniel; Mertz,
C. K.; Neil, Nancy; Bartlett, Sheryl\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Intuitive toxicology. II. Expert and lay judgments of
chemical risks in Canada\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 661-675\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines toxicologists\' and the general public\'s
attitudes and beliefs regarding chemical risks.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
8. Risk perception-severity\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Slovic, Paul; Kraus, Nancy; Covello, Vincent T.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: What should we know about making risk comparisons?\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 389-392\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses problems in presenting the comparison of
unrelated risk to the public and presents an empirical study to support
this argument.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 8. Risk perception-severity\
21. Other\
24. Community or public response\
**Hazard**: 10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not
pollutants)\
18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
20. Other

**Author**: Slovic, Paul; Fischhoff, Baruch; Lichtenstein, Sarah\
**Year**: 1981\
**Title**: Informing the public about the risks from ionizing radiation\
**Journal**: Health Physics\
**Volume**: 41\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 589-598\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses challenges regarding communicating
radiation risk to the public and examines the effect of an educational
brochure on adults\' risk perceptions.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
21. Other\
25. Policy/regulation changes\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Slovic, P.; Fischhoff, B.; Lichtenstein, S.\
**Year**: 1978\
**Title**: Accident probabilities and seat belt usage: A psychological
perspective\
**Journal**: Accident Analysis and Prevention\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 281-285\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses how seat belt use is more influenced by
probability than by severity of consequences and how people do not
voluntarily protect themselves from low probability risks.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 4. Automobile safety

**Author**: Smith, V. Kerry; Desvousges, William H.; Johnson, F. Reed;
Fisher, Ann\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Can public information programs affect risk perceptions?\
**Journal**: Journal of Policy Analysis and Management\
**Volume**: 9\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 41-59\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines how different risk presentation formats
influence homeowners\' perceptions of radon and provides recommendations
for radon risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
2. Communication style\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Snyder, Leslie B.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Learning and acting in a health communication campaign:
Teaching rural women to prevent infant dehydration through diarrheal
disease control in The Gambia, West Africa\
**University**: Stanford U, CA, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 47(9-A), Mar 1987,
3228.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: Spivey, G. H.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Health risk communication\--a view from within industry\
**Journal**: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: Suppl 1\
**Pages**: 63S-67S\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses ethical considerations and problem areas
regarding the epidemiologist\'s role in risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Spunt, B. S.; Deyo, R. A.; Taylor, V. M.; Leek, K. M.;
Goldberg, H.I.; Mulley, A.G.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: An interactive videodisc program for low back pain patients\
**Journal**: Health Education Research\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 535-541\
**Summary Sentence**: Reports patients\' evaluations of an interactive
videodisc program designed to provide information about lower back
surgery.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 13. Ill-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Stanbury, M.; Solice-Sample, G.; Pescatore, J.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Asbestos disease risk communication conducted by the New
Jersey Department of Health\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 97-104\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines adults\' attitudes toward a mailed
information packet about asbestos risk on their decision to seek legal
and medical advice.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
13. Ill-adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
14. Other\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Stefanek, M.E.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Counseling women at high risk for breast cancer\
**Journal**: Oncology\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 27-38\
**Summary Sentence**: Suggests that breast cancer risk counseling should
highlight the benefits of early detection, and should include
individualized risk information and an assessment of a woman\'s breast
self-exam technique.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
16. Benefits/gains\
17. Skill building/instructions\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Stone, Eric R.; Yates, J. Frank; Parker, Andrew M.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Effects of numerical and graphical displays on professed
risk-taking behavior\
**Journal**: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 243-256\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of numerical versus varying
graphical displays of risk likelihood on college students\' willingness
to buy the safer product.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 4. Automobile safety\
12. Other infectious diseases (e.g., Lyme disease)

**Author**: Stone, Eric R.; Yates, J. Frank; Parker, Andrew M.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Risk communication: Absolute versus relative expressions of
low-probability risks\
**Journal**: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes\
**Volume**: 60\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 387-408\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of presenting risk information
in terms of incidence rates versus relative risks on college students\'
intentions to buy the safer product.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or
hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Stone, J. A.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Content of notification: Exposure to the pesticide
chlordimeform\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 93-95\
**Summary Sentence**: Provides recommendations for the content of worker
notifications of chemical exposure risks.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 12. Unspecified\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
7. Possible health outcomes\
12. Time course of hazard\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Stoto, M. A.; Evans, G.; Bostrom, A.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Vaccine risk communication\
**Journal**: American Journal of Preventive Medicine\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 237-239\
**Summary Sentence**: Summarizes issues raised at a medical workshop
designed to discuss risk communication about childhood vaccines.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
10. Other\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid\
3. Interactive\
6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
6. Recall of message\
**Hazard**: 20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Strecher, Victor J.; Greenwood, Todd; Wang, Catharine;
Dumont, Dana\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Interactive multimedia and risk communication\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 134-139\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the benefits of interactive multimedia
in delivering risk information and tailoring it to individuals.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
2. Internet (listserves, web pages)\
**Content of risk message**: 22. Personalized information\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid\
2. Graphical display\
3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
21. Other\
27. Information processing/decision-making process\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Strecher, Victor J.; Kreuter, Matthew W.; Kobrin, Sarah C.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Do cigarette smokers have unrealistic perceptions of their
heart attack, cancer, and stroke risks?\
**Journal**: Journal of Behavioral Medicine\
**Volume**: 18\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 45-54\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares risk perceptions of smokers with those of
nonsmokers.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 3. Teen\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke\
17. Smoking

**Author**: Sutherland, H.J.; Lockwood, G.A.; Tritchler, D.L.; Sem, F.;
Brooks, L.; Till, J.E.\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Communicating probabilistic information to cancer patients:
Is there \"noise\" on the line?\
**Journal**: Social Science Medicine\
**Volume**: 32\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 725-731\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines cancer patients\' interpretations of
probability words (e.g., \"always\", \"never\").\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
4. Channel\
5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 13. Ill-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 1. Computer program (non-internet)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 11. Severity of outcome\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Sutton, Stephen R.; Eiser, J. Richard\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: The decision to wear a seat belt: The role of cognitive
factors, fear and prior behaviour\
**Journal**: Psychology and Health\
**Volume**: 4\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 111-123\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of a pro-seatbelt videotape
on employees\' fear, risk perceptions, and intentions to use seatbelts.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 4. Automobile safety

**Author**: Sutton, Stephen; Hallett, Robert\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Understanding seat-belt intentions and behavior: A
decision-making approach\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 19\
**Issue**: 15, Pt 1\
**Pages**: 1310-1325\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of an educational videotape on
employee\'s intentions to use and actual seat-belt use.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
11. Video\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 4. Automobile safety

**Author**: Sutton, Stephen; Hallett, Robert\
**Year**: 1988\
**Title**: Understanding the effects of fear-arousing communications:
The role of cognitive factors and amount of fear aroused\
**Journal**: Journal of Behavioral Medicine\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 353-360\
**Summary Sentence**: Employees\' risk perceptions, affect, confidence
in their ability to quit and intention to quit smoking were assessed
after they watched a videotape about the risks of smoking.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
23. Perceptions of efficacy/control\
**Hazard**: 17. Smoking

**Author**: Sutton, Stephen R.; Eiser, J. Richard\
**Year**: 1984\
**Title**: The effect of fear-arousing communications on cigarette
smoking: An expectancy-value approach\
**Journal**: Journal of Behavioral Medicine\
**Volume**: 7\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 13-33\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of an anti-smoking
videotape on employee\'s risk perceptions, intentions to quit smoking,
and quitting behavior.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
5. Content\
7. Outcome\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 10. Patient/peer/community member (affected)\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer\
6.13 Other cancer\
17. Smoking

**Author**: Sutton, Vickie V.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Perceptions of local emergency planning committee members\'
responsibility for risk communication and a proposed model risk
communication program for local emergency planning committees under
SARA, Title III\
**University**: U Texas, Dallas, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 50(7-B), Jan 1990,
2825.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: Svenson, Ola\
**Year**: 1988\
**Title**: Mental models of risk, communication, and action: Reflections
on social amplification of risk.\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 8\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 199-200\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses social amplification of risk as a
concept linking risk communication and people\'s perceptions of risks.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Tankard, James W. Jr.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Quantitative graphics in newspapers\
**Journal**: Journalism Quarterly\
**Volume**: Summer/Autumn\
**Pages**: 406-415\
**Summary Sentence**: Identifies common problems in newspaper graphics
that hinder effective risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 6. Print media (newspaper or
magazine)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Taplin, Stephen H.; Anderman, Carolyn; Grothaus, Lou; Curry,
Susan; Montano, Daniel\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Using physician correspondence and postcard reminders to
promote mammography use\
**Journal**: American Journal of Public Health\
**Volume**: 84\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 571-574\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates the effects of sending recommendation
letters, signed by either the primary physician or the program director,
and reminder postcards on mammography participation.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
15. Costs/barriers/losses\
16. Benefits/gains\
18. Reminder\
20. General information about recommended action\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 1 Breast cancer

**Author**: Tattersall, M. H.; Butow, P. N.; Griffin, A. M.; Dunn, S.
M.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: The take-home message: Patients prefer consultation
audiotapes to summary letters\
**Journal**: Journal of Clinical Oncology\
**Volume**: 12\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 1305-1311\
**Summary Sentence**: Compares cancer patients\' preferences for
information presented via audiotape or in a letter from their
physician.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 13. Ill-adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 12. Other\
21. Letter\
23. Audiotape\
**Content of risk message**: 11. Severity of outcome\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
14. Other\
19. General information about hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
6. Recall of message\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Thornton, J. G.; van den Borne, M. P.; de Bruijn, A. J.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Risk communication: The patient\'s view\
**Journal**: Early Human Development\
**Volume**: 47\
**Issue**: Suppl\
**Pages**: S13-S17\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses how to present risk information during
prenatal screening so that parents can make well-informed decisions.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 5. Birth defects

**Author**: Tilden, J.; Hanrahan, L. P.; Anderson, H.; Palit, C.; Olson,
J.; Kenzie, W. M.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Health advisories for consumers of Great Lakes sport fish: Is
the message being received?\
**Journal**: Environmental Health Perspectives\
**Volume**: 105\
**Issue**: 12\
**Pages**: 1360-1365\
**Summary Sentence**: Studies of behavioral responses to risk
communications regarding consumption of contaminated fish in the Great
Lakes Region.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Tillett, S.; Sullivan, P.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Asbestos screening and education programs for building and
construction trades unions\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 23\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 143-152\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses implementation of an asbestos risk
communication program, emphasizing the role of the unions in promoting
participation.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
8. Non-governmental organization (e.g., Am. Lung Assoc.)\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 9. Workplace\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 13. Actual testing/screening\
15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Timmermans, D. R. M.; Politser, P.; Wakker, P. P.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Aggregation, rationality, and risk communication: Three
current debates in medical decision making\
**Editor**: Caverni, Jean-Paul; Bar-Hillel, Maya\
**Book Title**: Contributions to decision making\--I.\
**City**: Amsterdam, the Netherlands\
**Publisher**: North-Holland/Elsevier Science Publishers\
**Pages**: 111-117\
**Summary Sentence**: Summarizes a workshop which focused on the role of
expected utility theory in medical decision making.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role, Ethnicity, & Gender**: 1. Health/safety professional\
20. Patient (general)\
**Setting**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
13. Actual testing/screening\
14. Actual treatment behavior\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Tinker, T.; Lewis-Younger, C.; Isaacs, S.; Neufer, L.;
Blair, C.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Environmental health risk communication: A case study of the
Chattanooga Creek site\
**Journal**: Journal of the Tennessee Medical Association\
**Volume**: 88\
**Issue**: 9\
**Pages**: 343-349\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes implementation of a risk information
program to a targeted audience.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
4. Channel\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
8. At risk/exposed-child or teen\
9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
5. Text-verbal\
6. Other\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
\
\
\
**Editor**: Tinker, Tim L.; Pavlova, Maria T.; Gotsch, Audrey R.; Arkin,
Elaine Bratic\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Communicating Risk in a Changing World\
**City**: Solomons Island, MD\
**Publisher**: The Ramazzini Institute/OEM Press\
**Number of Pages**: 197\
**ISBN**: ISBN 1-883595-20-7\
**Summary Sentence**: Book based on a 1996 symposium focusing on
environmental risk communication, with particular attention to the role
of the media and educational strategies. Contains sections called \"Risk
perceptions and models for risk communication\" and \"Challenges,
prospects, history and ethics.\" Each section includes state-of-the-art
papers, case studies, and discussions.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Channels of risk communication:** 0. Channels (general)\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not pollutants)\
15. Injury/safety (non-auto)

**Author**: Treadwell, D. F.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: AIDS communication: What predicts health professionals\'
decisions?\
**Journal**: International Quarterly of Community Health Education\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 165-186\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the perspectives taken by health
professionals in designing AIDS communication programs targeted toward
college students.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Tsao, Chien-chung\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Health communication: The relationship of the immune system
to relaxation, music, imagery and emotional affect\
**University**: Temple U, PA, USA.\
**Notes**: Dissertation Abstracts International. Vol 50(11-A), May 1990,
3537.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical

**Author**: Valente, Thomas W.; Saba, Walter P.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Mass media and interpersonal influence in a reproductive
health communication campaign in Bolivia\
**Journal**: Communication Research\
**Volume**: 25\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 96-124\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of a large-scale reproductive
health campaign and interpersonal influence on attitudes, knowledge, and
behavior change on community residents in Bolivia.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 4. Channel\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
11. Peer/community member (not affected)\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 7. Other\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 7. Radio\
10. TV\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
19. General information about hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
6. Recall of message\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 20. Other

**Author**: Van der Pligt, J.; Midden, Cees J.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Chernobyl: Four years later: Attitudes, risk management and
communication\
**Journal**: Journal of Environmental Psychology\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 91-99\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines public attitudes and opinion processes
regarding nuclear energy, public reactions to nuclear accidents, and how
risk is communicated regarding nuclear energy.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not
pollutants)\
20. Other

**Author**: Van Eijndhoven, Josee C. M.; Weterings, Rob A. P. M.;
Worrell, Cor W.; de Boer, Joop; van der Pligt, Joop; Stallen, Pieter-Jan
M.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Risk communication in the Netherlands: The monitored
introduction of the EC \"post-Seveso\" Directive\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 87-96\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the process and evaluation of
implementing the Seveso directive (notifying the public of risk) in two
regions of the Netherlands.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
7. Outcome\
12. General\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: van Zuuren, F. J.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: The standard of neutrality during genetic counseling: An
empirical investigation\
**Journal**: Patient Education and Counseling\
**Volume**: 32\
**Issue**: 1-2\
**Pages**: 69-79\
**Summary Sentence**: Analyzes verbal communications between genetic
counselors and their clients and discusses the implications of
counselors\' attitudes.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
**Hazard**: 5. Birth defects\
18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Vaughan, Elaine\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: The significance of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity for
the risk communication process\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 169-180\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the need for risk communication to
consider the larger socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural context.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Velicer, Christine M.; Knuth, Barbara A.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Communicating contaminant risks from sport-caught fish: The
importance of target audience assessment\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 833-841\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of a previously released
advisory on a diverse population\'s knowledge, risk perceptions, and
precautionary behavior regarding contaminated fish.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 3. Teen\
5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Vernon, Sally W.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: Risk perception and risk communication for cancer screening
behaviors: A review\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 101-119\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews research examining the relationships
between risk perceptions and cancer screening behaviors.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Verplanken, Bas\
**Year**: 1991\
**Title**: Persuasive communication of risk information: A test of cue
versus message processing effects in a field experiment\
**Journal**: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\
**Volume**: 17\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 188-193\
**Summary Sentence**: Assesses effects of source credibility in risk
communicators for producing attitude change.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
3. Setting\
**Communicator**: 1. Authority figure (non-expert)\
4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Verplanken, Bas\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: A persuasion approach to risk communication: Theory and
empirical evidence\
**Editors**: Borcherding, Katrin; Larichev, Oleg I.\
**Book Title**: Contemporary issues in decision making.\
**City**: Amsterdam, the Netherlands\
**Publisher**: North-Holland\
**Pages**: 291-303\
**Summary Sentence**: Utilized the Elaboration Likelihood Model to
experimentally investigate the role of source credibility, the
persistence of attitude change, and the beliefs-attitude- intention
consistency in risk communication.\
**Publication Type** 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
11. Multiple\
**Communicator**: 1. Authority figure (non-expert)\
4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Viscusi, W. Kip; Magat, Wesley A.; Huber, Joel\
**Year**: 1986\
**Title**: Informational regulation of consumer health risks: An
empirical evaluation of hazard warnings\
**Journal**: Rand Journal of Economics\
**Volume**: 17\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 351-365\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of product labels differing
in the amount and prominence of risk information on precautionary
behavior.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 10. Other\
**Channels of risk communication**: 12. Other\
24. Product label/packaging\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
9. Preventability of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Vlek, Charles A. J.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Understanding, accepting and controlling risks: A multistage
framework for risk communication\
**Journal**: European Review of Applied Psychology/Revue Europeenne de
Psychologie Appliquee\
**Volume**: 45\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 49-56\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the handling of societal risks through
effective, well-planned risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 12. General\
**Communicator**: 12. Unspecified\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
4. Expense of hazard\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
15. Actual other behavior (e.g., activism)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Waage, H. P.; Vatten, L. J.; Opedal, E.; Hilt, B.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Smoking intervention in subjects at risk of asbestos-related
lung cancer\
**Journal**: American Journal of Industrial Medicine\
**Volume**: 31\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 705-712\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effectiveness of an intervention
program for smokers at increased risk for lung cancer.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 8. At risk/exposed-child or teen\
**Audience Gender**: 2. Male\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6.13 Other cancer\
6. 9 Lung cancer\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
17. Smoking

**Author**: Wagner, E. H.; Barrett, P.; Barry, M. J.; Barlow, W.;
Fowler, F. J., Jr.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: The effect of a shared decisionmaking program on rates of
surgery for benign prostatic hyperplasia. Pilot results\
**Journal**: Medical Care\
**Volume**: 33\
**Issue**: 8\
**Pages**: 765-770\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effects of an interactive decision
aid on prostate treatment preferences.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 10. Decision aid\
**Communicator**: 7. Health professional/worker in health care setting\
**Audience Role**: 13. Ill-adult\
**Audience Gender**: 2. Male\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 1. Decision aid\
3. Interactive\
**Outcomes**: 19. Intended treatment behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 4 Prostate cancer

**Author**: Walker, Vern R.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Direct inference, probability, and a conceptual gulf in risk
communication\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 603-609\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses how differences in the conceptual
frameworks of scientists and the general public can lead to
misunderstandings and gaps in risk communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 16. General public\
17. Other\
21. Other professionals and experts\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Webler, Thomas; Rakel, Horst; Renn, Ortwin; Johnson,
Branden\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Eliciting and classifying concerns: A methodological
critique\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 421-436\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents a scheme for classifying expert and
community concerns, illustrated with an example of a public
participation program in which citizens considered land application of
municipal sewage sludge.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
16. General public\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 3. Lecture\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
8. Small groups/focus groups\
11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
7. Possible health outcomes\
8. Possible psychosocial outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 3. Interactive\
4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
**Hazard**: 8. Drug abuse

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.\
**Year**: 1999\
**Title**: What does it mean to understand a risk? Evaluating risk
comprehension\
**Journal**: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.\
**Issue**: 25\
**Pages**: 15-20\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses those attributes that are essential to
full comprehension of a risk, including outcome severity, absolute and
relative probabilities, controllability and factors that influence
individual susceptibility.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Content of risk message**: 0. Content (general)\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Accuracy of smokers\' risk perceptions\
**Journal**: Annals of Behavioral Medicine\
**Volume**: 20\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 135-140\
**Summary Sentence**: Reviews research on smokers\' risk perceptions to
determine whether smokers recognize their risk of contracting
smoking-induced illnesses.\
**Publication Type**: 2. Review\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Hazard**: 17. Smoking

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Persuasive conversations between friends about health and
safety precautions\
**Journal**: Health Education Quarterly\
**Volume**: 20\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 347-360\
**Summary Sentence**: Assesses the content and effect of persuasive
messages between friends about adopting precautionary health and safety
behaviors.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 3. Setting\
5. Content\
**Communicator**: 11. Peer/community member (not affected)\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
8. Possible psychosocial outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 6. Recall of message\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems:
Conclusions from a community-wide sample\
**Journal**: Journal of Behavioral Medicine\
**Volume**: 10\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 481-500\
**Summary Sentence**: Adults\' beliefs about their personal risk
relative to peers\' risk for a variety of health hazards reveal
consistent optimistic biases.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.\
**Year**: 1984\
**Title**: Why it won\'t happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and
susceptibility\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 431-457\
**Summary Sentence**: Investigates the determinants of optimistic biases
about health and safety risk, including risk controllability and
specific categories of risk factors.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.; Lyon, Judith E.; Sandman, Peter M.;
Cuite, Cara L.\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Experimental evidence for stages of health behavior change:
The precaution adoption process model applied to home radon testing\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 3\
**Issue**: 5\
**Pages**: 445-453\
**Summary Sentence**: Uses a stage theory of precaution adoption to
design interventions to encourage home radon testing.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 2. Audience, 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 11. Video\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
4. Expense of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
14. Other, 20. General information about recommended action\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
11. Actual information seeking behavior\
13. Actual testing/screening\
16. Intended information seeking behavior\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Weinstein, N.D.; Diefenbach, M.A.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Percentage and verbal category measures of risk likelihood\
**Journal**: Health Education Research\
**Volume**: 12\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 139-141\
**Summary Sentence**: Compared a percentage scale with a verbally
labeled scale for eliciting risk likelihood judgments.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)\
**Methodological Issues**: 2. Measurement (studies of different response
formats)

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.; Kolb, Kathryn; Goldstein, Bernard D.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Using time intervals between expected events to communicate
risk magnitudes\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 16\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 305-308\
**Summary Sentence**: Investigates the effects of presenting risk
probabilities in terms of the expected time intervals between illness
occurrences in a specific population.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
12. Time course of hazard\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil; Klein, William M.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Unrealistic optimism: Present and future\
**Journal**: Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology\
**Volume**: 15\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 1-8\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses research on unrealistic optimism and its
relation to risk perception.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
21. Other\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.; Klein, William M.\
**Year**: 1995\
**Title**: Resistance of personal risk perceptions to debiasing
interventions\
**Journal**: Health Psychology\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 132-140\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes four studies that attempt to reduce
people\'s tendency to believe that their own risk is less than that of
others.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
5. Adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood
pressure, genetic risk)\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 1. Alcohol\
13. Hypertension/heart disease/stroke\
18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Weinstein, N. D.; Sandman, P. M.; Hallman, W. K.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Testing a visual display to explain small probabilities
\[letter\]\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 14\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 895-897\
**Summary Sentence**: Tests the usefulness of visual displays to
communicate small probabilities.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 8. Educational setting: school or university\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display\
4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
20. Other\
22. Treatment related risks

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.; Sandman, Peter M.\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Some criteria for evaluating risk messages\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 13\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 103-114\
**Summary Sentence**: Seven criteria are presented for evaluating the
public\'s comprehension of risk messages, with examples from radon risk
communication.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Review\
**Focus**: 8. Measurement/evaluation\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Setting**: 10. Other, 11. Home\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display, 4. Text-numerical,
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 2. Comprehension of message\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
**Hazard**: 10. Other environmental (flooding, climate change/not
pollutants)\
16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray), 20. Other\
**Methodological Issues**: 1. Evaluation criteria (how to determine
effectiveness of risk communication)

**Author**: Weinstein, Neil D.; Sandman, Peter M.; Roberts, Nancy E.\
**Year**: 1990\
**Title**: Determinants of self-protective behavior: Home radon testing\
**Journal**: Journal of Applied Social Psychology\
**Volume**: 20\
**Issue**: 10 Pt 1\
**Pages**: 783-801\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the influence of threat, remediation
ease, and home risk factors in a mailed brochure on at-risk homeowner\'s
decisions to test for radon.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Audience Role**: 9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
3. Definition of hazard\
5. Likelihood-absolute\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
9. Preventability of hazard\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
11. Severity of outcome\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
13. Actual testing/screening\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Weterings, Rob A.; Van Eijndhoven, Josee C.\
**Year**: 1989\
**Title**: Informing the public about uncertain risks\
**Journal**: Risk Analysis\
**Volume**: 9\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 473-482\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the way authorities communicated soil
pollution risks to exposed Dutch residents, and discusses the problems
with the content of the messages, namely a lack of probability
information about health outcomes.\
**Publication Type**: 3. Case study\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 1. Authority figure (non-expert)\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
9. At risk/exposed-adult\
**Setting**: 2. Community meeting/community group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 1. Cause/source/communicability of
risk/mode of transmission\
**Form of risk information**: 5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
9. Pollutants/chemical exposure

**Author**: Wiatrowski, W. A.; Giles, E. R.; Cooke, E. P.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: Development of a system to evaluate and communicate radiation
risk\
**Journal**: Health Physics\
**Volume**: 70\
**Issue**: 1\
**Pages**: 111-117\
**Summary Sentence**: Describes a system to explain the radiation risks
of voluntary participation in studies using positron emission
technology.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
6. Format\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)

**Author**: Wilson, R.; Crouch, E. A. C.\
**Year**: 1987\
**Title**: Risk assessment and comparisons: An introduction\
**Journal**: Science\
**Volume**: 236\
**Pages**: 267-270\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses the difficulty of understanding risk
probabilities and how comparing and contrasting hazards may make their
probabilities easier to grasp.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Content of risk message**: 3. Definition of hazard\
6. Likelihood-comparative (across people or hazards)\
**Hazard**: 19. General, unspecified

**Author**: Witte, Kim\
**Year**: 1993\
**Title**: Generating Effective Risk Messages: How scary should your
risk communication be?\
**Journal**: Communication Yearbook\
**Volume**: 18\
**Pages**: 229-254\
**Summary Sentence**: Presents a theory to determine the optimal level
of \"scariness\" in risk messages.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Discussion\
**Focus**: 7. Outcome\
**Content of risk message**: 14. Other\
**Methodological Issues**: 3. Other

**Author**: Witte, Kim; Berkowitz, Judy M.; Lillie, Janet McKeon;
Cameron, Kenzie A.; Lapinski, Maria Knight; Liu, Wen-Ying\
**Year**: 1998\
**Title**: Radon awareness and reduction campaigns for African
Americans: A theoretically based evaluation\
**Journal**: Health Education and Behavior\
**Volume**: 25\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 284-303\
**Summary Sentence**: Evaluates different radon-awareness campaigns with
African-American focus groups.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience, 4. Channel, 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult, 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 1. African-American\
**Setting**: 3. Focus group/small group\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
12. Other\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
7. Possible health outcomes\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
11. Severity of outcome\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 2. Graphical display, 4. Text-numerical,
5. Text-verbal\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
10. Satisfaction/communication appraisal\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 16. Radiation (radon, sun exposure, x-ray)\
6. 0 Cancer, 6. 9 Lung cancer

**Author**: Witte, Kim; Peterson, Tarla R.; Vallabhan, Shalini;
Stephenson, Michael T.; Plugge, Carol D.; Givens, Vonda K.; Todd, Jay
D.; Becktold, Melissa G.; Hyde, Mary Kay; Jarrett, Robin\
**Year**: 1992\
**Title**: Preventing tractor-related injuries and deaths in rural
populations: Using a persuasive health message framework in formative
evaluation research\
**Journal**: International Quarterly of Community Health Education\
**Volume**: 13\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 219-251\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines farmers\' attitudes, fear, risk
perception, self- efficacy and actual/intended use of safety procedures
and used this information to formulate more effective risk
communications.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 2. Audience\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Audience Role**: 17. Other\
5. Adult\
**Outcomes**: 1. Attitude\
5. Psychological distress/affect/concern/preoccupation\
7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
12. Actual preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
17. Intended preventive health behavior/risky behavior\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
28. Information/communication preferences\
**Hazard**: 15. Injury/safety (non-auto)

**Author**: Wolf, A. M.; Philbrick, J. T.; Schorling, J. B.\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: Predictors of interest in prostate-specific antigen screening
and the impact of informed consent: what should we tell our patients?\
**Journal**: American Journal of Medicine\
**Volume**: 103\
**Issue**: 4\
**Pages**: 308-314\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of information about
prostate-specific antigen screening on men\'s interest in the
screening.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Gender**: 2. Male\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
13. Treatability of hazard consequences\
**Form of risk information**: 6. Other\
7. Oral/spoken\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
8. Risk perception-severity\
18. Intended testing/screening\
21. Other\
22. Perceptions of recommended action/treatment\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 4 Prostate cancer

**Author**: Wolf, A.M.D.; Nasser, J.F.; Wolf, A.M.; Schorling, J.B.\
**Year**: 1996\
**Title**: The impact of informed consent on patient interest in
prostate-specific antigen screening\
**Journal**: Archives of Internal Medicine\
**Volume**: 156\
**Issue**: 2\
**Pages**: 1333-1336\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of information about prostate
cancer screening read to subjects on adult males\' interest.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
**Communicator**: 4. Expert/researcher/scientist\
**Audience Role**: 5. Adult\
**Audience Ethnicity**: 6. Mixed/varied/multiple\
**Audience Gender**: 2. Male\
**Setting**: 5. Health care setting\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
10. Risk factors (exposure levels, blood pressure, genetic risk)\
13. Treatability of hazard\
14. Other\
15. Costs/barriers/losses\
16. Benefits/gains\
**Form of risk information**: 6. Other\
7. Oral/spoken\
**Outcomes**: 18. Intended testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 6. 0 Cancer\
6. 4 Prostate cancer

**Author**: Wright, R.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Risk communication: How to answer tough patient questions\
**Journal**: Journal of the American Dental Association\
**Volume**: 125\
**Issue**: 8\
**Pages**: 1131-1137\
**Summary Sentence**: Discusses ways dentists can allay patients\' fears
including communicating clearly, building trust, and taking the
patient\'s perspective.\
**Publication Type**: 1. Communicator\
2. Audience\
3. Setting\
**Audience Role**: 1. Health/safety professional\
**Channels of risk communication**: 4. One-on-one (face-to-face)\
**Content of risk message**: 2. Communication style\
4. Other\
15. Costs/barriers/losses\
16. Benefits/gains\
**Outcomes**: 4. Communicator-Audience relationship (e.g., trust)\
8. Risk perception-severity\
9. Risk perception-other attribute of risk\
**Hazard**: 9. Pollutants/chemical exposure\
11. HIV/AIDS/STDs

**Author**: Yamagishi, Kimihiko\
**Year**: 1997\
**Title**: When a 12.86% mortality is more dangerous than 24.14%:
Implications for risk communication\
**Journal**: Applied Cognitive Psychology\
**Volume**: 11\
**Issue**: 6\
**Pages**: 495-506\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines differences in risk perceptions caused by
varying the formats used to present risk information.\
**Publication Type**: 4. Empirical\
**Focus**: 6. Format\
9. Risk perception/comprehension\
**Communicator**: 6. Investigator/experimenter\
**Audience Role**: 4. College student/Graduate student\
**Setting**: 6. Laboratory\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
**Content of risk message**: 5. Likelihood-absolute\
**Form of risk information**: 4. Text-numerical\
**Outcomes**: 7. Risk perception-likelihood\
**Hazard**: 18. Multiple (greater than 5)

**Author**: Zimicki, S.; Hornik, R. C.; Verzosa, C. C.; Hernandez, J.
R.; de Guzman, E.; Dayrit, M.; Fausto, A.; Lee, M. B.; Abad, M.\
**Year**: 1994\
**Title**: Improving vaccination coverage in urban areas through a
health communication campaign: The 1990 Philippine experience\
**Journal**: Bulletin of the World Health Organization\
**Volume**: 72\
**Issue**: 3\
**Pages**: 409-422\
**Summary Sentence**: Examines the effect of a mass-media campaign in
the Philippines on mothers\' knowledge about vaccination for measles and
actual vaccination rates.\
**Publication Type**: 5. Intervention\
**Focus**: 5. Content\
7. Outcome\
**Communicator**: 5. Governmental organization (e.g., NCI)\
**Audience Role**: 6. Parent or prospective parent\
**Audience Gender**: 1. Female\
**Setting**: 4. General community\
**Channels of risk communication**: 5. Pamphlets, newsletters, fact
sheets, handouts, or questionnaires\
6. Print media (newspaper or magazine)\
7. Radio\
10. TV, 12. Other\
**Content of risk message**: 7. Possible health outcomes\
9. Preventability of hazard\
11. Severity of outcome\
14. Other\
18. Reminder\
**Outcomes**: 3. Knowledge\
6. Recall of message\
13. Actual testing/screening\
**Hazard**: 12. Other infectious diseases (e.g., Lyme disease)