Cardiff University | Prifysgol Caerdydd ORCA
Online Research @ Cardiff 
WelshClear Cookie - decide language by browser settings

Communication about risk: the responses of primary care professionals to standardizing the 'language of risk' and communication tools

Edwards, Adrian G., Matthews, E., Pill, R. and Bloor, M. 1998. Communication about risk: the responses of primary care professionals to standardizing the 'language of risk' and communication tools. Family Practice 15 (4) , pp. 301-307. 10.1093/fampra/15.4.301

Full text not available from this repository.

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.

Item Type: Article
Date Type: Publication
Status: Published
Schools: Medicine
Subjects: R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
Publisher: Oxford University Press
ISSN: 0263-2136
Last Modified: 04 Jun 2017 06:44
URI: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/id/eprint/64212

Citation Data

Cited 46 times in Google Scholar. View in Google Scholar

Cited 32 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Cited 27 times in Web of Science. View in Web of Science.

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item Edit Item