Risk communication about alternative health promotion strategies

Governmental organizations usually only provide information on the best option to avoid or mitigate a specific risk, such as stop smoking or full vaccination. Many citizens do not follow this advice and do nothing, which is the worst option from a public health point of view. However, they may also seek alternative advices for second best options, such as using e-cigarettes or partial vaccination. Communication on alternative health options is currently not evidence based, and often performed by stakeholders with a vested interest. Including a second best option in health communications may increase public health and informed decision-making, but it may also result in counterproductive effects.

Aim: Our project aims to assess the effects of including second best options in risk communications that currently only contain best options, by studying two cases: smoking cessation versus e-cigarette use, and full versus partial vaccination.
Objectives:

1. Identify the determinants of choices concerning best, second best and worst options and factors that may prevent counterproductive effects;

2. Determine the effects of risk communication about best and second best options on

a. primary outcomes: citizens’ intentions towards the best, second best and worst strategy

b. secondary outcomes: citizens’ knowledge and accuracy of perceived risks, attitudes, self-efficacy/confidence about the different options, and informed decision making including decreased decisional conflict, increased satisfaction with the decision, increased decision self-efficacy, and reduced proportion remaining undecided.

3. Develop and test a Risk Prevention Decision Aid that can be used by the RIVM for providing risk communication that includes second best options. This will ensure effective

nvt

nvt