Effects of selective outcome reporting on risk perception

How to improve IARC's RF-EMF cancer hazard communication

A crucial aspect of IARC's evaluation of the relative carcinogenicity of agents is the communication of its conclusions. The present paper addressed the experimental risk perception literature pertaining to IARC's radiofrequency electromagnetic field evaluation communication, and derived specific recommendations for improving it.

Eliminating the effects of reporting bias on risk perception

Taking the public discourse on health risks due to aluminum in antiperspirants as an example, we conducted a randomized controlled study with repeated measurements to research how selective reporting of risk information affects risk perception and trust in risk information. First, the study varied the information scope that the experimental subjects received (selective vs. complete information). Selective information highlighted that a health risk is given. Considering the full range of studies, complete information is indicated the opposite. A second variation referred to the facticity of the hazardous agent mentioned in the risk information (a reference to either an actual or fictitious agent). Moreover, the selectively informed subjects received the complete information after the effects of the selective information were measured. Four risk perceptions constructs were chosen as dependent variables, differing on two dimensions (affective vs. cognitive and personal risk vs. risk for others). In addition, subjects´ trust in the given risk information was measured. The study reveals that presenting selective information amplifies risk perceptions. The effect was observed, irrespective of whether the hazardous agent mentioned in the risk information was actual or fictitious. When subjects who first received the selective information obtained the complete information, indicating no elevated risk, risk perceptions decreased. However, the analysis also indicates that corrective information (indicating no risk) is less trusted than selective information that points to health risks. Furthermore, proper toxicological understanding, i.e., taking into account the dose-response relationship, supports the effect of corrective information on risk perceptions.

Public Risk Perception Attribution Model and Governance Path in COVID-19: A Perspective Based on Risk Information

Background

Risk perception is a key factor influencing the public’s behavioral response to major public health events. The research on public risk perception promotes the emergency management system to adapt to the needs of modern development. This article is based on a risk information perspective, using the COVID-19 event as an example. From the micro and macro perspectives, the influencing factors of public risk perception in major public health events in China are extracted, and the attribution model and index system of public risk perception are established.

Methods

In this paper, the five-level Likert scale is used to collect and measure the risk perception variable questionnaire through the combination of online and offline methods (a total of 550 questionnaires, the overall Alpha coefficient of the questionnaire is 0.955, and the KMO test coefficient t=0.941), and through independent samples t-test, correlation analysis, multiple regression analysis and other methods to draw relevant conclusions.

Results

The results showed that gender and age were significantly associated with risk perception (p<0.005), and education level was significantly negatively associated with risk perception (p <0 0.005). Risk information attention and risk perception were significantly positively correlated (p<0.005), media credibility was significantly positively correlated with risk perception (p<0.005), while risk information identification and media exposure had no significant interaction with risk perception (p=0.125, p=0.352).

Conclusion

Factors such as gender, age, education level, place of residence, media exposure, media credibility, risk information attention, and recognition lead to different levels of risk perception. This conclusion helps to provide a basis for relevant departments to conduct public risk management of major public health events based on differences in risk perceptions.

Spin and reporting in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in restorative dentistry

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews with metanalysis (SRMAs) in restorative dentistry.

METHODS

Inclusion criteria were SRMAs of randomized clinical trials of restorative dentistry on survival, success, or failure rates of treatment in humans, with no language or year restriction. SRMAs performed with non-RCTs were excluded. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from inception to April 2022. Outcomes were the prevalence of spin (primary outcome) and completeness of reporting (secondary outcome) in the abstract and full text. Data were reported through means and standard deviations or absolute and relative frequencies. Spin in each item was considered low when occurring in less than 25% of the papers, moderate (25 to 75%), or high (more than 75%).

RESULTS

We identified 7029 studies and 49 unique manuscripts were included. There was a moderate presence of spin in the abstracts and low in full texts. In the abstracts, 65.9% did not report adverse events; while in the abstract and full text, more than 16% reported a conclusion containing recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings. Regarding completeness of reporting, there was poor reporting for most items in the abstract while there was an adequate report in full texts, except for register name and registration number (not reported in 32.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Abstract of SRMAs in restorative dentistry should be better reported. Spin and poor reporting were more frequent in the abstracts, which misleads readers and could lead to inadequate clinical recommendations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Spin and incomplete reporting are a threat to evidence-based practice, especially in systematic reviews. Therefore, care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders should be aware of the possibility of spin in systematic reviews and other sources to prevent misinterpretation, which could lead to inadequate decisions and treatments.

EMBRACE-WATERS statement: Recommendations for reporting of studies on antimicrobial resistance in wastewater and related aquatic environments

BACKGROUND

A One Health approach requires integrative research to elucidate antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in the environment and the risks it poses to human health. Research on this topic involves experts from diverse backgrounds and professions. Shortcomings exist in terms of consistent, complete, and transparent reporting in many environmental studies. Standardized reporting will improve the quality of scientific papers, enable meta-analyses and enhance the communication among different experts. In this study, we aimed to generate a consensus of reporting standards for AMR research in wastewater and related aquatic environments.

METHODS

Based on a risk of bias assessment of the literature in a systematic review, we proposed a set of study quality indicators. We then used a multistep modified Delphi consensus to develop the EMBRACE-WATERS statement (rEporting antiMicroBial ResistAnCE in WATERS), a checklist of recommendations for reporting in studies of AMR in wastewater and related aquatic environments.

FINDINGS

Consensus was achieved among a multidisciplinary panel of twenty-one experts in three steps. The developed EMBRACE-WATERS statement incorporates 21 items. Each item contains essential elements of high-quality reporting and is followed by an explanation of their rationale and a reporting-example. The EMBRACE-WATERS statement is primarily intended to be used by investigators to ensure transparent and comprehensive reporting of their studies. It can also guide peer-reviewers and editors in evaluation of manuscripts on AMR in the aquatic environment. This statement is not intended to be used to guide investigators on the methodology of their research.

INTERPRETATION

We are hopeful that this statement will improve the reporting quality of future studies of AMR in wastewater and related aquatic environments. Its uptake would generate a common language to be used among researchers from different disciplines, thus advancing the One Health approach towards understanding AMR spread across aquatic environments. Similar initiatives are needed in other areas of One Health research.

Technical assistance in the field of risk communication

This report assesses peer-reviewed and grey literature on risk communication concepts and practices, as requested by the European Commission to support the implementation of a 'General Plan for Risk Communication', i.e. an integrated framework for EU food safety risk assessors and risk managers at Union and national level, as required by the revised EU General Food Law Regulation. We conducted a scoping review of social research studies and official reports in relation to risk communication in the following areas: understanding and awareness of risk analysis roles and tasks, reducing misunderstanding of the different meaning of the terms 'hazard' and 'risk', tackling misinformation and disinformation, enhancing confidence in EU food safety, taking account of risk perceptions, key factors in trade-offs about risks, audience segmentation and tools, channels and mechanisms for coordinated risk communications. We structured our findings as follows: i) definitions of key concepts, ii) audience analysis and information requirements, iii) risk profiling, models and mechanisms, iv) contributions to communication strategies. We make several recommendations for consideration by the Commission, both in terms of actions to support the design and implementation of the general plan, and research needs that we consider crucial to further inform appropriate risk communication in the EU. EFSA carried out a targeted consultation of experts and a public consultation open to all interested parties including the general public, in preparing and finalising this report.