PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Given the complementary roles of health professionals and journalists in communicating health risks to patients and the public, there have been calls for physicians to work with journalists to improve the quality of health information received by the public. Understanding the preferences of medical and journalism students for the way in which health risks are communicated and their understanding of words used to describe risk is an important first step to inform interdisciplinary learning.
METHODS: Medical and journalism students (n = 203) completed an online survey where they were given qualitative descriptors of risk such as \'a chance\', \'probably\' and \'unlikely\', and asked to assign a number that represents what the word means to them. Different formats of communicating risk (percentages, natural frequency and visual aids) were provided and students were asked to select and explain their preference. A thematic analysis of reasons was conducted. Numeracy and perceived mathematics ability were measured.
RESULTS: Numbers assigned to the descriptor \'A chance\' had the highest variability for medical students. Numbers assigned to the descriptor \'Probably\' had the highest variability for journalism students. Using visual aids was the most popular format for risk communication for both courses (56% of medical students and 40% of journalism students). Using percentages was twice as popular with journalism students compared to medical students (36% vs. 18%). Perceived mathematics ability was lower in students with a preference for natural frequencies and in journalism students, however performance on an objective numeracy scale was similar for all three formats (percentages, natural frequency and visual aids). Reasons for choosing a preferred format included good communication, eliciting a response, or learning style.
CONCLUSIONS: Education on health risk communication for medical and journalism students should emphasize the need for qualitative descriptors of risk to be combined with the best available number. Students are already considering their role as future communicators of health risks and open to tailoring the mode of presentation to their audience. Further research is required on the design and evaluation of interdisciplinary workshops in health risk communication for medical and journalism students to maximise the opportunities for future inter-professional working.
METHODS: Medical and journalism students (n = 203) completed an online survey where they were given qualitative descriptors of risk such as \'a chance\', \'probably\' and \'unlikely\', and asked to assign a number that represents what the word means to them. Different formats of communicating risk (percentages, natural frequency and visual aids) were provided and students were asked to select and explain their preference. A thematic analysis of reasons was conducted. Numeracy and perceived mathematics ability were measured.
RESULTS: Numbers assigned to the descriptor \'A chance\' had the highest variability for medical students. Numbers assigned to the descriptor \'Probably\' had the highest variability for journalism students. Using visual aids was the most popular format for risk communication for both courses (56% of medical students and 40% of journalism students). Using percentages was twice as popular with journalism students compared to medical students (36% vs. 18%). Perceived mathematics ability was lower in students with a preference for natural frequencies and in journalism students, however performance on an objective numeracy scale was similar for all three formats (percentages, natural frequency and visual aids). Reasons for choosing a preferred format included good communication, eliciting a response, or learning style.
CONCLUSIONS: Education on health risk communication for medical and journalism students should emphasize the need for qualitative descriptors of risk to be combined with the best available number. Students are already considering their role as future communicators of health risks and open to tailoring the mode of presentation to their audience. Further research is required on the design and evaluation of interdisciplinary workshops in health risk communication for medical and journalism students to maximise the opportunities for future inter-professional working.
摘要：
背景：鉴于卫生专业人员和记者在向患者和公众传达健康风险方面的互补作用，有人呼吁医生与记者合作，提高公众收到的健康信息的质量。了解医学和新闻专业学生对传达健康风险的方式的偏好以及他们对用于描述风险的词语的理解是告知跨学科学习的重要的第一步。
方法：医学和新闻学专业的学生（n=203）完成了一项在线调查，在该调查中，他们获得了风险的定性描述符，例如“机会”，\'可能\'和\'不太可能\',并要求分配一个代表这个词对他们意味着什么的数字。不同格式的沟通风险(百分比，提供了自然频率和视觉辅助工具），并要求学生选择并解释他们的偏好。对原因进行了专题分析。测量了算术能力和感知数学能力。
结果：分配给描述符“机会”的数字对医学生的变异性最高。分配给描述符\“可能\”的数字对于新闻专业学生而言具有最高的可变性。在这两个课程中，使用视觉辅助工具是最受欢迎的风险交流格式（56％的医学生和40％的新闻专业学生）。与医科学生相比，新闻专业学生的使用百分比是其两倍（36％与18%）。偏爱固有频率的学生和新闻专业的学生的数学能力较低，然而，所有三种格式在客观计算能力上的表现都是相似的(百分比，固有频率和视觉辅助)。选择首选格式的原因包括良好的沟通，引起回应，或学习风格。
结论：医学和新闻专业学生的健康风险交流教育应强调风险的定性描述符与最佳可用数字相结合的必要性。学生们已经在考虑他们作为未来健康风险传播者的角色，并愿意为观众量身定制演示模式。需要进一步研究医学和新闻专业学生的健康风险交流跨学科研讨会的设计和评估，以最大限度地增加未来跨专业工作的机会。
方法：医学和新闻学专业的学生（n=203）完成了一项在线调查，在该调查中，他们获得了风险的定性描述符，例如“机会”，\'可能\'和\'不太可能\',并要求分配一个代表这个词对他们意味着什么的数字。不同格式的沟通风险(百分比，提供了自然频率和视觉辅助工具），并要求学生选择并解释他们的偏好。对原因进行了专题分析。测量了算术能力和感知数学能力。
结果：分配给描述符“机会”的数字对医学生的变异性最高。分配给描述符\“可能\”的数字对于新闻专业学生而言具有最高的可变性。在这两个课程中，使用视觉辅助工具是最受欢迎的风险交流格式（56％的医学生和40％的新闻专业学生）。与医科学生相比，新闻专业学生的使用百分比是其两倍（36％与18%）。偏爱固有频率的学生和新闻专业的学生的数学能力较低，然而，所有三种格式在客观计算能力上的表现都是相似的(百分比，固有频率和视觉辅助)。选择首选格式的原因包括良好的沟通，引起回应，或学习风格。
结论：医学和新闻专业学生的健康风险交流教育应强调风险的定性描述符与最佳可用数字相结合的必要性。学生们已经在考虑他们作为未来健康风险传播者的角色，并愿意为观众量身定制演示模式。需要进一步研究医学和新闻专业学生的健康风险交流跨学科研讨会的设计和评估，以最大限度地增加未来跨专业工作的机会。
