To illustrate this point, Dr. Fisher used the issue of radon testing and abatement. The general risk characteristics of radon have kept it a relatively obscure public health issue. Radon risk reduction is a clear example of a health information program that may have substantial success from a marketing perspective, but fail from a public health perspective. Dr. Fisher referred the workshop participants to a report, Evaluation and Effective Risk Communication Workshop Proceedings, providing a more detailed description of evaluation issues. An edited version of the article is in Appendix 3 .
Research shows that evaluation can lead to more effective risk communication.
Formative evaluation involves pretesting and pilot testing before full production of a risk communication activity to provide feedback on and allow modification basic concepts, materials design, and delivery channels. While a risk communication program is being implemented, process evaluation identifies and measures its strengths and weaknesses. In addition to providing accountability, the process evaluation allows midstream modifications to ensure that intended messages are reaching the target audiences. Outcome and impact evaluation identify what the audience actually received, what they learned, and whether they changed the way they feel, think, or behave. The stakeholders for a risk communication activity include government agencies, corporations, unions, media, scientists, public interest groups, diverse communities, and individual citizens.