Objective Optimisation of non-prescription medicine (NPM) supply from community pharmacies could reduce demand on other healthcare providers, including general practitioners and emergency department personnel. Outcomes can be maximised if patients disclose relevant information, for example concomitant medication, during pharmacy-based consultations. Strategies to promote information disclosure are needed. This study used the psychometric paradigm of risk to explore whether the public's risk perception of NPMs was associated with information disclosure. Methods This national, cross-sectional population study used a random sample of 3000 adults (aged ≥ 18 years) from the Scottish Electoral register. Postal questionnaires collected data on risk perceptions, information disclosure and demographic information. Exploratory factor analysis was used to determine constructs to which the risk questions could be grouped. Factors were scored and the scores compared across demographics. Key findings Just over half (57%) of the 927 respondents perceived NPMs to be associated with low general risk. For 19 of the 23 statements (83%), respondents indicated general agreement, that is low-risk perception of NPMs. Individuals with higher risk perception of NPMs were less likely to disclose information during consultations compared with respondents with lower risk perception. Conclusion There is general low public risk perception of NPMs. Individuals with higher risk perception are less likely to disclose information. Interventions that raise risk perception are unlikely to enhance the safe and effective supply of NPMs.
I shall discuss, from a personal perspective, research on risk perception that has created an understanding of the dynamic interplay between an appreciation of risk that resides in us as a feeling and an appreciation of risk that results from analysis. In some circumstances, feelings reflect important social values that deserve to be considered along with traditional analyses of physical and economic risk. In other situations, both feelings and analyses may be shaped by powerful cognitive biases and deep social and partisan prejudices, causing nonrational judgments and decisions. This is of concern if risk analysis is to be applied, as it needs to be, in managing existential threats such as pandemic disease, climate change, or nuclear weapons amidst a divisive political climate.
No abstract is provided for this article.
No abstract is provided for this article.
Numeracy refers to the ability to use numbers, including converting percentages (e.g., 10%) into absolute frequencies (e.g., 1 in 10). Studies have suggested that numeracy is correlated to financial outcomes, suggesting its relevance to financial decisions. However, almost all research on numeracy has been conducted in high-income countries in Europe and North America. Our analyses suggest that low numeracy is much more common in low-income countries, thus potentially threatening the financial well-being of the world’s poorest. We analyzed data from the Lloyd’s Register Foundation World Risk Poll, which assessed basic numeracy in 141 countries, including 21 low-income, 34 lower middle income, 43 upper middle income, and 43 high-income countries. Numeracy was associated with being among the poorest 20% of one’s country, and with difficulty living on one’s income, even after accounting for income, education, and demographics. These findings underscore the importance of worldwide numeracy education.
Humans perceive and act on risk in two fundamental ways. Risk as feelings refers to individuals' instinctive and intuitive reactions to danger. Risk as analysis brings logic, reason, and scientific deliberation to bear on risk management. Reliance on risk as feelings is described as “the affect heuristic.” This article traces the development of this heuristic and discusses some of the important ways that it impacts how people perceive and evaluate risk.
Potential health risks from exposure to power-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) have become an issue of significant public concern. This study evaluates a brochure designed to communicate EMF health risks from a scientific perspective. The study utilized a pretest-post test design in which respondents judged various sources of EMF (and other) health and safety risks, both before reading the brochure and after. Respondents assessed risks on dimensions similar to those utilized in previous studies of risk perception. In addition, detailed ratings were made that probed respondents' beliefs about the possible causal effects of EMF exposure. The findings suggest that naive beliefs about the potential of EMF exposure to cause harm were highly influenced by specific content elements of the brochure. The implications for using risk-communication approaches based on communicating scientific uncertainty are discussed.
Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and overt conflict have become pervasive. Risk‐perception research has recently begun to provide a new perspective on this problem. Distrust in risk analysis and risk management plays a central role in this perspective. According to this view, the conflicts and controversies surrounding risk management are not due to public ignorance or irrationality but, instead, are seen as a side effect of our remarkable form of participatory democracy, amplified by powerful technological and social changes that systematically destroy trust. Recognizing the importance of trust and understanding the “dynamics of the system” that destroys trust has vast implications for how we approach risk management in the future.
Axiomatic theories of choice introduce preference as a primitive relation, which is interpreted through specific empirical procedures such as choice or pricing. Models of rational choice assume a principle of procedure invariance, which requires strategically equivalent methods of elicitation to yield the same preference order. Thus, if the decision maker prefers A to B, then the cash equivalent, or minimum selling price, of A should exceed that of B. However, there is a substantial body of evidence showing that the price ordering of risky prospects is systematically different from the choice ordering, contrary to standard theories of choice.
Recent research finds that perceived risk is closely associated with race and gender. In surveys of the American public a subset of white males stand out for their uniformly low perceptions of environmental health risks, while most nonwhite and nonmale respondents reveal higher perceived risk. Such findings have been attributed to the advantageous position of white males in American social life. This article explores the linked possibility that this demographic pattern is driven not simply by the social advantages or disadvantages embodied in race or gender, but by the subjective experience of vulnerability and by sociopolitical evaluations pertaining to environmental in justice. Indices of environmental (in)justice and social vulnerability were developed as part of a U.S. National Risk Survey ( n = 1,192) in order to examine their effect on perceived risk. It was found that those who regarded themselves as vulnerable and supported belief statements consistent with the environmental justice thesis offered higher risk ratings across a range of hazards. Multivariate analysis indicates that our measures of vulnerability and environmental (in)justice predict perceived risk but do not account for all of the effects of race and gender. The article closes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for further work on vulnerability and risk, risk communication, and risk management practices generally.
