Transparente medizinische Risikokommunikation: Eine ethische Verantwortung?
Transparent risk communication: an ethical responsibility?
Search for other papers by Odette Wegwarth in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Susanne Michl in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Die aktuelle öffentliche Gesundheitskommunikation entspricht oft nicht den Bedingungen, die für eine informierte Entscheidungsfindung erforderlich sind. Im Gegenteil: Die Öffentlichkeit erhält häufig unvollständige, intransparente und zum Teil irreführende Gesundheitsinformationen. Um das Vertrauen in die öffentliche Gesundheitskommunikation zu verbessern, fordern Forschergemeinschaften zunehmend die ausführliche und transparente Darstellung aller relevanten Informationen, darunter auch das Ausmaß wissenschaftlicher Unsicherheit und die potenziellen Grenzen von Präventionsmaßnahmen.
Abstract
Current public health communication often does not meet the requirements necessary for informed decision-making. On the contrary: the general public often receives incomplete, intransparent and to some extent misleading health information. In order to foster trust in public health communication, research communities are increasingly calling for full and transparent disclosure of all relevant information, which includes the extent of scientific uncertainty and the potential limitations of preventive interventions.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Brown, R.C.H., and de Barra, M. (2023). A Taxonomy of Non-honesty in Public Health Communication. Public Health Ethics 16 (1), 86–101.
-
Büchter, R.B., Fechtelpeter, D., Knelangen, M., Ehrlich, M., and Waltering, A. (2014). Words or numbers? Communicating risk of adverse effects in written consumer health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 14 (1), 76.
-
Bundesinnenministerium. (2020). Wie wir COVID-19 unter Kontrolle bekommen. Online unter: https://fragdenstaat.de/dokumente/4123-wie-wir-covid-19-unter-kontrolle-bekommen/ (Zugriff: 25.09.2024).
-
BZgA (2024). Krebserkrankungen bei Frauen BZgA/Frauengesundheitsportal: Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung. Online unter: https://www.frauengesundheitsportal.de/themen/krebserkrankungen/ (Zugriff: 25.09.2024).
-
Caverly, T.J., Hayward, R.A., Reamer, E., Zikmund-Fisher, B.J., Connochie, D., Heisler, M., et al. (2016). Presentation of Benefits and Harms in US Cancer Screening and Prevention Guidelines: Systematic Review. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 108 (6).
-
Caverly, T.J., Prochazka, A.V., Binswanger, I.A., Kutner, J.S., and Matlock, D.D. (2014). Confusing Relative Risk with Absolute Risk Is Associated with More Enthusiastic Beliefs about the Value of Cancer Screening. Medical Decision Making 34 (5), 686–692.
-
de Barra, M., and Brown, R.C.H. (2023) Public-health communication should be more transparent. Nature Human Behaviour 7 (5), 662–664.
-
Furedi, A. (1999). The public health implications of the 1995 ‘pill scare’. Human Reproduction Update 5, 621–626.
-
Gigerenzer, G., and Gray, J.A.M. (2012). Launching the century of the patient. In: G. Gigerenzer and J.A.M. Gray, eds., Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: Envisioning healthcare 2020. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L.M., and Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 8 (2), 53–96.
-
Gigerenzer, G., Mata, J., and Frank, R. (2009). Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 101 (17), 1216–1220.
-
Gigerenzer, G., Multmeier, J., Föhring, A., and Wegwarth, O. (2021). Do children have Bayesian intuitions? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 150, 1041–1070.
-
Gigerenzer, G., Wegwarth, O., and Feufel, M. (2010). Misleading communication of risk: editors should enforce transparent reporting in abstracts. British Medical Journal 341, 791–792.
-
Gøtzsche, P., and Jørgensen, K.J. (2013). Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Systematic Review 6 (CD001877).
-
Gøtzsche, P., and Nielsen, M. (2006). Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review 4 (CD001877).
-
Hoffrage, U., and Gigerenzer, G. (1998). Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Acad Med 73 (5), 538–540.
-
Jain, B.P. (1998). Number needed to treat and relative risk reduction. Ann Intern Med 128 (1), 72–73.
-
John, S. (2022). Why Five Fruit and Veg a Day? Communicating, Deceiving, and Manipulating With Numbers. In: C. Newfield, A. Alexandrova and S. John, eds., Limits of the Numerical: The Abuse and Use of Quantification, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 141–160.
-
Lindholt, M.F., Jørgensen, F., Bor, A., and Petersen, M.B. (2021). Public acceptance of COVID-19 vaccines: cross-national evidence on levels and individual-level predictors using observational data. BMJ Open 11 (6), e048172.
-
Lühnen, J., Albrecht, M., Mühlhauser, I., and Steckelberg, A. (2017). Leitlinie evidenzbasierte Gesundheitsinformation [Guideline for evidence-based health information]. Online unter: http://www.leitlinie-gesundheitsinformation.de/ (Zugriff: 25.09.2024).
-
Malenka, D.J., Baron, J.A., Johansen, S., Wahrenberger, J.W., and Ross, J.M. (1993). The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. Journal of General Internal Medicine 8 (10), 543–548.
-
McDowell, M., Gigerenzer, G., Wegwarth, O., and Rebitschek, F.G. (2019). Effect of tabular and icon fact box formats on comprehension of benefits and harms of prostate cancer screening: A randomized trial. Medical Decision Making 39 (1), 41–56.
-
McDowell, M., Rebitschek, F., Gigerenzer, G., and Wegwarth, O. (2016). A simple tool for communicating the benefits and harms of health interventions: a guide for creating a fact box. Medical Decision Making Policy & Practice 1, 2381468316665365.
-
Miron-Shatz, T., Mühlhauser, I., Bower, B., Diefenbach, M., Goldacre, B., Smith, R.S.W., et al. (2011). Barriers to health information and building solutions. In: G. Gigerenzer and J.A.M. Gray, eds., Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: Envisioning healthcare in 2020, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 191–212.
-
Mühlhauser, I., Pantel, J., und Meyer, G. (2024). Aufarbeitung der Corona- Pandemiemaßnahmen – Evidenzbasierte Risikokommunikation muss ein zentrales Thema sein. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen.
-
Nature (2020). Editorial: COVID vaccine confidence requires radical transparency. Nature 586 (7827), 8.
-
Oxman, A.D., Fretheim, A., Lewin, S., Flottorp, S., Glenton, C., Helleve, A., et al. (2022). Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform? Health Research Policy and Systems 20 (1), 28.
-
Patel, A., MacMahon, S., Chalmers, J., Neal, B., Billot, L., Woodward, M., et al. (2008). Intensive blood glucose control and vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 358 (24), 2560–2572.
-
Petersen, M.B., Bor, A., Jørgensen, F., and Lindholt, M.F. (2021). Transparent communication about negative features of COVID-19 vaccines decreases acceptance but increases trust. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (29), e2024597118.
-
Prasad, V. (2020). Op-Ed: Why did Fauci move the herd immunity goal posts? Online available: https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/vinay-prasad/90445 (Zugriff: 25.09.2024).
-
Schaper, M., Hansen, S.L., and Schicktanz, S. (2019). Überreden für die gute Sache? Techniken öffentlicher Gesundheitskommunikation und ihre ethischen Implikationen. Ethik in der Medizin 31 (1), 23–44.
-
Schwartz, L.M., Woloshin S., and Welch, H.G. (2009). Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 150 (8), 516–527.
-
Schwartz, L.M., Woloshin, S., and Welch, H.G. (2007). The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Medical Decision Making 27 (5), 655–662.
-
Sedrakyan, A., and Shih, C. (2007). Improving depiction of benefits and harms: Analyses of studies of well-known therapeutics and review of high-impact medical journals. Medical Care 45, 523–528.
-
The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes Study Group. (2008). Effects of Intensive Glucose Lowering in Type 2 Diabetes. New England Journal of Medicine 358 (24), 2545–2559.
-
The DELVE Initiative. (2020). SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development & implementation; scenarios, options, key decisions. Online available: https://rs-delve.github.io/reports/2020/10/01/covid19-vaccination-report.html (Zugriff: 25.09.2024).
-
van der Bles, A.M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A.L.J., and Spiegelhalter, D.J. (2020). The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117 (14), 7672–7683.
-
Webster, R.K., Weinman, J., and Rubin, G.J. (2017). People’s Understanding of Verbal Risk Descriptors in Patient Information Leaflets: A Cross-Sectional National Survey of 18- to 65-Year-Olds in England. Drug Safety 40 (8), 743–754.
-
Wegwarth, O., and Gigerenzer, G. (2011). “There is nothing to worry about”: Gynecologists’ counseling on mammography. Patient Education and Counseling 84, 251–256.
-
Wegwarth, O., and Gigerenzer, G. (2011). Statistical illiteracy in doctors. In: G. Gigerenzer and J.A.M. Gray, eds., Better doctors, better patients, better decisions: Envisioning healthcare 2020, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 137–151.
-
Wegwarth, O., and Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Improving evidence-based practices through health literacy – in reply. JAMA Internal Medicine 174 (8), 1413–1414.
-
Wegwarth, O., Hertwig, R., Giese, H., and Fineberg, H.V. (2024). The impact of nontransparent health communication during the COVID-19 pandemic on vaccine-hesitant people’s perception of vaccines. Frontiers in Public Health 11.
-
Wegwarth, O., Kurzenhäuser-Carstens, S., and Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Overcoming the knowledge-behavior gap: the effect of evidence-based HPV vaccination leaflets on understanding, intention, and actual vaccination decision. Vaccine 32 (12), 1388–1393.
-
Wegwarth, O., Wagner, G.G., Spies, C.D., and Hertwig, R. (2020). Assessment of German Public Attitudes Toward Health Communications With Varying Degrees of Scientific Uncertainty Regarding COVID-19. JAMA Network Open (12), Article e2032335.
-
Wegwarth, O., Widschwendter, M., Cibula, D., Sundström, K., Lein, I., Rebitschek, F.G., et al. (2018). What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in 5 European countries. BMJ Open 8, e023789.
-
Woloshin, S., and Schwartz, L.M. (2012). How a charity oversells mammography. BMJ 345, e5132.
-
Woloshin, S., Schwartz, L.M., and Welch, H.G. (2002). Risk charts: Putting cancer in context. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 94, 799–804.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 58 | 58 | 58 |
| Full Text Views | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 15 | 15 | 15 |
Transparente medizinische Risikokommunikation: Eine ethische Verantwortung?
Transparent risk communication: an ethical responsibility?
Search for other papers by Odette Wegwarth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Susanne Michl in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Die aktuelle öffentliche Gesundheitskommunikation entspricht oft nicht den Bedingungen, die für eine informierte Entscheidungsfindung erforderlich sind. Im Gegenteil: Die Öffentlichkeit erhält häufig unvollständige, intransparente und zum Teil irreführende Gesundheitsinformationen. Um das Vertrauen in die öffentliche Gesundheitskommunikation zu verbessern, fordern Forschergemeinschaften zunehmend die ausführliche und transparente Darstellung aller relevanten Informationen, darunter auch das Ausmaß wissenschaftlicher Unsicherheit und die potenziellen Grenzen von Präventionsmaßnahmen.
Abstract
Current public health communication often does not meet the requirements necessary for informed decision-making. On the contrary: the general public often receives incomplete, intransparent and to some extent misleading health information. In order to foster trust in public health communication, research communities are increasingly calling for full and transparent disclosure of all relevant information, which includes the extent of scientific uncertainty and the potential limitations of preventive interventions.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 58 | 58 | 58 |
| Full Text Views | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 15 | 15 | 15 |