Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T12:32:54.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sweta Chakraborty
Sweta Chakraborty*
Affiliation:
King's College, London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This section discusses issues related to risk communication across a range of publicly perceived highrisk industries (such as pharmaceuticals, nuclear, oil, etc.). It reports critically and provides analysis on risk communication as an outcome of risk research within these industries. Contributions are intended to include methods working towards the advancement of risk perception research and describe any lessons learned for successfully communicating to the public about risk.

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2010 , pp. 83 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Löfstedt Ragnar E./Vogel D., “The changing character of regulation: A comparison of Europe and the United States”, Risk Analysis (2001), Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 399–406; Vogal, David, “The Politics of Risk Regulation in Europe and the United States”, The Yearbook of European Environmental Law (2003), pp. 3 et sqq.

2 For a more detailed discussion on the standardized drug approval process see Hodges, Christopher, “Regulating Risk or Advancing Therapies? – Regulation and Sustainability of Medicines in a Cash-limited Economy”, European Business Law Review (2008), Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 365–86Google Scholar.

3 Ibid, pp. 365–86; Boston Consulting Group, A Revolution in R & D: How Genomics and Genetics are Transforming the Biopharmaceutical Industry (2001); DiMasi, J. A. et al., “The Price of Innovation: New Estimates of Drug Development Costs,” J Health Economics (2003), pp. 151–85.

4 Epstein, R., Overdose: Hoe Excessive Government Regulation Stifles Pharmaceutical Innovation (Yale University Press 2007)Google Scholar.

5 Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, Challenges and Priorities for the Next Five Years (2007), Q.11.; Jack, A., “Pharma Bosses Call for the Faster Approval of Medicines of New Medicines,” Financial Times, 4 July 2007.

6 PhRMA, “PhRMA: New Medicines, New Hope”, (2002), Retrieved August 4, 2006, from http://www.phrma.org.; statistic taken from the Pharmaceutical Industry Profile (Pharma Research and Manufacturers of America, 2005).

7 Hodges, Christopher, ibid, pp. 365–86.

8 Hilts, P. J., Protecting America's Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation, 2003.

9 Lewis, Carol, “Advisory Committees: FDA's Primary Stakeholders Have a Say”, Food and Drug Administration: For Consumers (2009). Available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/PatientInvolvement/ucm123870.htm.

10 Berndt, E. R. et al., “Industry funding of the FDA: effects of PDUFA on approval times and withdrawal rates”, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery (2005), Vol. 4, pp. 545–554 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

11 Food and Drug Administration, Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) (2009). Available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/default.htm.

12 American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Shortening Drug Approval Times via Industry Funding of the FDA, Conference Minutes, 16 February 2005, Washington DC.

13 Hilts, P. J., ibid; Spiers, A. S. D., Save the FDA (2005), 330: 308.

14 Löfstedt, R., “The Impact of the Cox-2 Inhibitor Issue on Perceptions of the Pharmaceutical Industry: Content Analysis and Communication Implications”, Journal of Health Communication (2007), Vol. 12, No. 5, pp. 471–491 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

15 Institute of Medicine, The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public (2006).

16 For more on the media's role in the amplification of risk see Kasperson, J. et al., The Social Contours of Risk (Earthscan 2005). 17 Harris Poll (a), “Large Numbers of People Do Not Trust the Institutions They Identify as Most Responsible for Drug Safety”, (April 25, 2007), The Harris Poll, from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1216.

17 Harris Poll, “U.S. Adults Desire Ongoing Review of Pharmaceuticals”, (December 21, 2006), The Harris Poll, 89, from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=716.

18 Harris Poll, “U.S. Adults Desire Ongoing Review of Pharmaceuticals“, (December 21, 2006), The Harris Poll, 89, from http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=716.

19 Food and Drug Administration's Amendments Act, Section 921, Adverse drug reaction reports and postmarket safety (Washington DC: US Congress FDAAA 2007).

20 Osterberg, L. and Blaschke, T., “Adherence to Medication”, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 353, pp. 487–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Chakraborty, S., (in press), “The Role of Trust in Patient Noncompliance”, Risk Analysis (in peer review).

22 Bostrom, A./Atman, C. J. et al., “Evaluating risk communications: Completing and correcting mental models of hazardous processes, Part 2”, Risk Analysis (1994), Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 789–798 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fischhoff, B./Bostrom, A. et al., Risk Perception and Communication (Oxford University Press 2002)Google Scholar.

23 European Commission, European Governance: A white paper, COM 2001 428 Final (Brussels: European Commission 2001); Löfstedt, R. E., “Risk communication and management in the twenty-first century”, International Public Management Journal (2004), Vol. 7, pp. 335–346 Google Scholar.

24 Global Harmonization Taskforce, available on the Internet at http://ghtf.org.