These days, science can tell us in incredible detail the ways our decisions are impacting our health – it’s easier than ever to discover what is going on in our bodies. We know that a poor diet or lack of exercise can have negative impacts on our heart health. We know that too much sun exposure can lead to skin cancer. We even know how diseases spread – and how they don’t. But, in the face of all of this information, we still continue to make decisions that may not be the best for our health.
In other words, many medical professionals are dismayed by the large gap between risk as perceived by scientists, and risk as perceived by the population as a whole.
As an example of this gap, some doctors and scientists point to the country’s reaction to Ebola. Though the average American is more at risk for flu, a car accident, obesity, diabetes, or heart disease than Ebola, the entry of the disease into the U.S. has brought a high level of fear. This prompts the question: How can the medical community accurately and responsibly communicate risk in a way that encourages healthy choices?
Last week, as part of the Great Challenges program, we convened a group of experts on the topic. They discussed the psychology behind risk perception and talked about strategies and tools that the medical community can use to ensure that patients receive an accurate understanding of their risks and are encouraged to act accordingly. The event was moderated by James Maskell, CEO and Founder of Revive Primary Care.
The participants all agreed that our reactions to risk are often driven by feelings before facts – and that the low level of health literacy in this country doesn’t help. Brian Zikmund-Fisher, PhD, an Associate Professor of Health Behavior & Health Education at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, noted that other elements of human risk perception include our experience (or those of others), our knowledge, our level of control, and our level of dread. He stressed the importance of understanding risk as a population-level construct.
Glyn Elwyn, MBBCH, MSC, FRCGP, PhD, a physician-researcher, Professor and Senior Scientist at the Dartmouth Health Care Delivery Science Center and the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, posed a key question: “How do we frame information so that it’s easy to understand?” The group agreed that risk perception is largely about context; they stressed the importance of using language and tools to create this context – which is not always statistics. Brian shared his thoughts on the subject: “how can we give people the tools so that they can understand under what circumstances they would be at risk, and when they’re not at risk? We need to use stories to represent examples and also provide quantitative information.”
Thomas Workman, PhD, MA, the Principal Communication Researcher and Evaluator for the Health and Social Development Program at the American Institutes for Research (AIR), had one suggestion: asking patients to think about how they would feel if the health condition for which the patient is at risk occurred. He called for patient involvement in the development of these tools, asking, “How can we incorporate patients into the development of some of these tools and technologies?”
Participants emphasized the importance of the clinical encounter in creating this context. At the same time, the short time for each office visit was a concern. Thomas noted that “The conversation with the physician is just as important as the conversation with the community.” He suggested that risk and prevention discussions can take place with organizations within the community – or even within small family units. David Bell, MD, MPH, an Assistant Professor of Population and Family Health at the Columbia University Medical Center, echoed this sentiment. He stressed the need for risk information to come from a trusted source.
The participants also recognized that the media plays an important role in framing the public’s risk perception. We live in a world where we are confronted with sensationalized news daily. Glyn pointed to the low trust in public information plus dread as a “toxic mix that the media are ventilating,” while Thomas asked: “How can we create more balanced messages?” Brian noted that while individual stories may make interesting news stories, they “will never be representative of the broader range of what could possibly occur.”
On the whole, the participants concurred that, as David put it, “Every step of the way patients get different messages about their risk and we all need to be on the same page.” A tall order, of course, but one which may lead to more realistic understandings of risk – and consequently, it is hoped, the adoption of healthier behaviors.
If you missed the live event, catch the recast here: www.tedmed.com/greatchallenges/liveevent/494673, and stay tuned for our next Great Challenges hangout on Achieving Medical Innovation later this month!