A Edwards1, E Matthews, R Pill, M Bloor. 1. Department of General Practice, University of Wales College of Medicine, Llanedeyrn Health Centre, Cardiff, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to gauge responses of primary care professionals to standardization of the 'language of risk' and risk communication tools. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative study using six semi-structured focus group discussions. The subjects were 36 primary care professionals from general practice, practice nurse, district nurse, community psychiatric nurse and health visitor disciplines. RESULTS: Between professionals, the standardization of the language of risk was felt to have potential benefit in making professionals consistent in their appreciation of risks and communication with each other. Between professionals and patients, standardized language was thought inappropriate or insufficient because of contextual variation in communication and interpretation of risk information by patients. The use of more-detailed comparisons of risks was felt to be a potentially effective development of risk communication in practice. CONCLUSIONS: A standard language of risk communication was perceived as being potentially helpful for communication between professionals, but many respondents were sceptical about its usefulness in communication with patients.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to gauge responses of primary care professionals to standardization of the 'language of risk' and risk communication tools. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative study using six semi-structured focus group discussions. The subjects were 36 primary care professionals from general practice, practice nurse, district nurse, community psychiatric nurse and health visitor disciplines. RESULTS: Between professionals, the standardization of the language of risk was felt to have potential benefit in making professionals consistent in their appreciation of risks and communication with each other. Between professionals and patients, standardized language was thought inappropriate or insufficient because of contextual variation in communication and interpretation of risk information by patients. The use of more-detailed comparisons of risks was felt to be a potentially effective development of risk communication in practice. CONCLUSIONS: A standard language of risk communication was perceived as being potentially helpful for communication between professionals, but many respondents were sceptical about its usefulness in communication with patients.
Authors: Sophie Hill; Janet Spink; Dominique Cadilhac; Adrian Edwards; Caroline Kaufman; Sophie Rogers; Rebecca Ryan; Andrew Tonkin Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 3.295