There are different ways to communicate a health risk to the public. One wants to make sure not to create a panic, so the communicative strategy has be approached in a well thought out manner. Some of the communication approaches that will be discussed below are based on research methods either in communication or other fields. Each perspective approaches risk from a different view point, just as the public would do. By adopting multiple perspectives, risk can be more clearly conveyed to a large and diverse body of people.
Risk communication is most effective when the public is involved. Questions are answered and information becomes more widely available. Since health risks are being discussed, crisis communication was included in this analysis because sometimes a sudden outbreak of a disease can turn into a crisis. Knowing how health risk communicators deal with these situations is thus important to know in crisis situations.
National Research Council’s Approach
According to the National Research Council, risk communication is defined as the “interactive process of exchange of information and opinions among individuals, groups, and institutions concerning a risk or potential risk to human health or the environment” (Lundgren and McMakin 15). Researchers conclude that “early and interactive involvement with those at risk” is essential in effectively conveying a potential risk (15).
This approach is most difficult in crisis communication. When a crisis arises, there is no time to consult with those who could possibly be affected by a potential risk, such as an outbreak of a new form of the flu like H1N1. Planning is the key to dealing with an emergency if this approach is going to be used. Exchanging information with a potential audience, i.e. making people aware of how to prevent the spread of the flu before it spreads further, could not only prevent the disease from infecting more people, but also allow those dealing with the crisis more time to figure out what to do next.
Crisis Communication Approach
Crisis communication puts the responsibility entirely upon the risk communicators, unlike with the previous approach, which involves communication with the audience before an action is taken. The point of this approach is to effectively communicate the risk “to move the audience to appropriate action” (Lundgren and McMakin 18). Essentially, the organization conveying the information is providing the audience with everything they need to know to get the public to do what is best at that given moment.
The problem with this approach is that the public demands a lot of information in moments of crisis, and the organization may not be able to provide it as quickly as the public is demanding. Persuasion can help in a public health emergency, i.e. offering honest information in order to convince the public that the situation can be addressed. Often, providing limited information is most effective because the communicator will be able to limit communication problems or errors if and when new information arises.
Convergence Communication Approach
This approach involves trust. When a risk communicator takes the convergence communication approach, they are taking into consideration both the values of the organization they are working for and those of the audience with whom they are communicating. What is taking place is the organization conveys the risk and the audience processes it to their own degree and then issues feedback, i.e., “We don’t trust you,” or “What is this stuff?” or “Do you want me to do something?” (Lundgren and McMakin 19). Once this exchange has occurred, the organization can process the feedback from the audience and issue updated responses. “The two groups continue to cycle information back and forth, slowly converging onto common ground” (19).
In situations involving health risks, communication with the audience is key. The public is going to have questions when they are given information regarding things that could possibly harm them. For instance, smoking was not always seen as harmful, but as more and more information became available people began to have more and more questions. The health risks of smoking are now widely known because this cycle of information effectively answered the questions of the public with accurate, updated information.