Suchergebnisse

This article explores the utility of using media analyses as a method for risk researchers to gain an initial understanding of how the public may perceive a risk issue or event based on how it is presented and communicated in news media stories. In the area of risk research, newspapers consistently provide coverage of both acute and chronic risk events, whereas televised news broadcasts report primarily acute risk events. There is no consensus in the literature about which news format (print vs. televised) may be better to study public conceptualizations of risk, or if one format (e.g., print) may be used as a surrogate measure for another format (e.g., televised). This study compares Canadian national televised and newspaper coverage of the same risk event: the E. coli contamination of a public drinking water supply. Using a content analysis, this study empirically demonstrates the overall similarity in story content coverage in both televised and print coverage, noting that televised coverage promotes primarily emotional story themes while print coverage tends to also include coverage of analysis and process. On this basis, the research draws two conclusions: 1) given its more comprehensive coverage, newspaper broadsheets may provide a better measure of media coverage of a risk event than televised coverage (if only one format can be studied); and 2) when the risk area of interest is chronic, and/or if the scale of analysis is at a community/local level (i.e., when it is unlikely that archived televised coverage is available), then a researcher may find the print media to be a more useful format to study.

Historical trauma and the negative effects of colonialism continue to be played out within Canadian culture. These processes have a deleterious effect on physical and psychological health outcomes among Indigenous Peoples. Through the creation of a safe space as part of a decolonizing, participatory activity program spanning 7 weeks, First Nations and Metis women and girls (aged 8-12) were able to begin to unpack what it means to be happy, healthy, and safe, and what is needed to actualize these goals. A community engaged, asset-based workshop approach provided a forum for participants to discuss the impact of traumatic experiences on the ability of adults to model a positive image of strength, independence, and confidence for their daughters, while creating a space to discuss change.

Drinking-water guidelines remain an ongoing issue within Canada, as elsewhere. Given recent epidemiological evidence concerning chlorinated disinfection byproducts in drinking water and cancer outcomes, some branches within Health Canada have been undertaking an extensive review of the issue. This paper examines what impact contested scientific authorities, as filtered through a regulatory agency, may have on the policymaking process in the setting of Canadian drinking-water guidelines. Using an agenda-setting framework, we rely on a textual analysis of a Health Canada expert panel report and a position paper written to accompany the panel report; Canadian print media translations of scientific evidence; and in-depth interviews with scientists (from the academy, industry, and government) and other interested stakeholders [for example, chlorine and water industry, and environmental nongovernmental organizations]. Through this analysis we reconstruct a discourse which suggests government-science in policy, rather than policymakers, is primarily and presently driving the issue. The issue itself appears to remain a debate which is largely over the strength of the scientific evidence from regulatory and public-health scientists (for example, in Health Canada), and their colleague research scientists (for example, leading researchers in the field). Although we argue that it is primarily cancer that drives the science-policy agenda, with respect to chlorinated drinking water, it is possible that reproductive effects are likely to be central to the debate for controlling chlorine use in the future.

Worldwide, more than 50 million cases of dengue fever are reported every year in at least 124 countries, and it is estimated that approximately 2.5 billion people are at risk for dengue infection. In Bangladesh, the recurrence of dengue has become a growing public health threat. Notably, knowledge and perceptions of dengue disease risk, particularly among the public, are not well understood. Recognizing the importance of assessing risk perception, we adopted a comparative approach to examine a generic methodology to assess diverse sets of beliefs related to dengue disease risk. Our study mapped existing knowledge structures regarding the risk associated with dengue virus, its vector (Aedes mosquitoes), water container use, and human activities in the city of Dhaka, Bangladesh. "Public mental models" were developed from interviews and focus group discussions with diverse community groups; "expert mental models" were formulated based on open‐ended discussions with experts in the pertinent fields. A comparative assessment of the public's and experts' knowledge and perception of dengue disease risk has revealed significant gaps in the perception of: (a) disease risk indicators and measurements; (b) disease severity; (c) control of disease spread; and (d) the institutions responsible for intervention. This assessment further identifies misconceptions in public perception regarding: (a) causes of dengue disease; (b) dengue disease symptoms; (c) dengue disease severity; (d) dengue vector ecology; and (e) dengue disease transmission. Based on these results, recommendations are put forward for improving communication of dengue risk and practicing local community engagement and knowledge enhancement in Bangladesh.

Abstract Background The belief that early detection is the best protection against cancer underlies cancer screening. Emerging research now suggests harms associated with early detection may sometimes outweigh the benefits. Governments, cancer agencies, and organizations that publish screening guidelines have found it is difficult to "un-ring the bell" on the message that "early detection is your best protection" because of its widespread communication and enduring resonance. This study explores affective factors—and their interplay with relevant analytical factors—in public/laypersons' decision making about cancer screening. Methods A total of 93 people (47 men, 46 women) attended focus groups about, respectively, prostate cancer screening and breast cancer screening in two Canadian cities. Results Affective factors were a major influence on many focus group participants' decision making about cancer screening, including fear of cancer and a generalized enthusiasm for prevention/screening, and they were often inspired by anecdotes about the cancer experiences of family and friends. Affect also existed alongside more analytical factors including assessments of reduced risk in the management of any cancer diagnosis if caught early, and, for men, the belief that an unreliable test is "better than nothing," and that men deserve prostate cancer screening because women have breast and cervical cancer screening. Affective factors were particularly noticeable in the sub-groups most supportive of screening and the "early detection" message: older women who felt that mammogram screening should begin at age 40 rather than 50, and older men who felt that prostate cancer screening should be expanded beyond its current unorganized, opportunistic usage. In contrast, younger participants displayed less affective attachments to "early detection" messages and had greater concerns about harms of screening and were more receptive to nuanced messages informed by evidence. Conclusion Policymakers attempting to communicate more nuanced versions of the "early detection" message need to understand the role of affect alongside other judgments brought into laypersons' decision making processes and anticipate how affective responses to their messages will be shaped, transformed, and potentially subverted by external forces beyond their control. Particularly overt external factors are campaigns by cancer advocacy organizations actively promoting breast and prostate cancer awareness and screening to younger women and men using affectively-charged messages.

The practice of chlorine disinfection of drinking water to reduce microbial risks provides substantial benefits to public health. However, increasing concern around potential risks of cancer associated with exposure to chlorinated disinfection byproducts confuses this issue. This article examines the science agenda regarding chlorinated disinfection byproducts (CDBP) and cancer in Canada and the United States, focusing on the social construction of scientific knowledge claims and evidence. Data for this analysis were obtained from published documents as well as from in‐depth interviews with epidemiologists and toxicologists centrally involved with the issue in both countries. Results of the analysis suggest that toxicological scientists want to close the door on the "chloroform issue" due to increasing evidence that chloroform is safe at low doses, because epidemiological scientists can no longer move forward the cancer science until significant improvements can be made in assessing human exposures, and because the scientific foci of research on DBP have shifted accordingly. Further, a distinction emerges in terms of how scientific uncertainties are interpreted when they cross‐cut disciplines in the context of human health risk assessment. We suggest this tension reflects a balance of how uncertainty and authorities are managed in a mandated science‐policy domain. Sufficient evidence was provided to keep the DBP issue on the regulatory agenda and to generate additional research, yet authorities and concomitant interpretations of uncertainty were contested. Such science generation and contestation inevitably influences complex risk assessment processes with respect to what water‐related health risks are addressed and how.

AbstractWe examined the perspectives of the Red River Métis citizens in Manitoba, Canada, during the H1N1 and COVID‐19 pandemics and how they interpreted the communication of government/health authorities' risk management decisions. For Indigenous populations, pandemic response strategies play out within the context of ongoing colonial relationships with government institutions characterized by significant distrust. A crucial difference between the two pandemics was that the Métis in Manitoba were prioritized for early vaccine access during H1N1 but not for COVID‐19. Data collection involved 17 focus groups with Métis citizens following the H1N1 outbreak and 17 focus groups during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Métis prioritization during H1N1 was met with some apprehension and fear that Indigenous Peoples were vaccine‐safety test subjects before population‐wide distribution occurred. By contrast, as one of Canada's three recognized Indigenous nations, the non‐prioritization of the Métis during COVID‐19 was viewed as an egregious sign of disrespect and indifference. Our research demonstrates that both reactions were situated within claims that the government does not care about the Métis, referencing past and ongoing colonial motivations. Government and health institutions must anticipate this overarching colonial context when making and communicating risk management decisions with Indigenous Peoples. In this vein, government authorities must work toward a praxis of decolonization in these relationships, including, for example, working in partnership with Indigenous nations to engage in collaborative risk mitigation and communication that meets the unique needs of Indigenous populations and limits the potential for less benign—though understandable—interpretations.

Abstract
Background
Little is known about how intersecting social privilege and disadvantage contribute to inequities in COVID-19 information use and vaccine access. This study explored how social inequities intersect to shape access to and use of COVID-19 information and vaccines among parents in Canada.

Methods
We conducted semi-structured interviews on COVID-19 vaccination information use with ethnically diverse parents of children ages 11 to 18 years from April to August 2022. We purposefully invited parents from respondents to a national online survey to ensure representation across diverse intersecting social identities. Five researchers coded transcripts in NVivo using a discourse analysis approach informed by intersectionality. Our analysis focused on use of vaccine information and intersecting privileges and oppressions, including identifying with equity-denied group(s).

Results
Interview participants (N = 48) identified as ethnically diverse non-Indigenous (n = 40) and Indigenous (n = 8) Peoples from seven Canadian provinces. Racialized minority or Indigenous participants reflected on historical and contemporary events of racism from government and medical institutions as barriers to trust and access to COVID-19 information, vaccines, and the Canadian healthcare system. Participants with privileged social locations showed greater comfort in resisting public health measures. Despite the urgency to receive COVID-19 vaccines, information gaps and transportation barriers delayed vaccination among some participants living with chronic medical conditions.

Conclusion
Historicization of colonialism and ongoing events of racism are a major barrier to trusting public health information. Fostering partnerships with trusted leaders and/or healthcare workers from racialized communities may help rebuild trust. Healthcare systems need to continuously implement strategies to restore trust with Indigenous and racialized populations.