Advertisement

Risikokommunikation im Internet

  • Martina GampEmail author
  • Luka-Johanna Debbeler
  • Britta Renner
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Kapitel stellt internetbasierte Risikokommunikation aus psychologischer Perspektive dar. Es wird beleuchtet, wie sich drei Eigenschaften des Internets (Reichweite, Schnelligkeit und Kosteneffizienz) auf die Risikokommunikation auswirken und für diese nutzbar gemacht werden können. Darüber hinaus werden Möglichkeiten aufgezeigt, wie Prinzipien einer effektiven Risikokommunikation durch das Internet umgesetzt und bereichert werden können. Anschließend werden Herausforderungen und deren mögliche Lösungen diskutiert.

Literatur

  1. Ancker JS, Weber EU, Kukafka R (2011) Effect of arrangement of stick figures on estimates of proportion in risk graphics. Med Decis Making 31(1):143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumann E, Czerwinski F (2015) Erst mal Doktor Google fragen? Nutzung neuer Medien zur Information und zum Austausch über Gesundheitsthemen. In: Böcken J, Braun B, Meierjürgen R (Hrsg) Gesundheitsmonitor 2015. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh, S 5779Google Scholar
  3. Bean SJ (2011) Emerging and continuing trends in vaccine opposition website content. Vaccine 29(10):1874–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Betsch C, Ulshöfer C, Renkewitz F, Betsch T (2011) The influence of narrative vs. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Med Decis Making 31(5):742–753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betsch C, Brewer NT, Brocard P, Davies P, Gaissmaier W, Haase N, Leask J, Renkewitz F, Renner B, Reyna VF, Rossmann C, Sachse K, Schachinger A, Siegrist M, Stryk M (2012) Opportunities and challenges of Web 2.0 for vaccination decisions. Vaccine 30(25):3727–3733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BMI (2014) Leitfaden Krisenkommunikation. Bundesministerium des Innern, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Brewer N (2011) Goals. In: Fischhoff B, Brewer N, Downs J (Hrsg) Communicating risks and benefits: an evidence based user’s guide. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, S 3–10Google Scholar
  8. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND (2007) Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: the example of vaccination. Health Psychol 26(2):136–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunge M, Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A (2010) What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Couns 78(3):316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. CDC (2014) Crisis and emergency risk communication. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/cerc/resources/pdf/cerc_2014edition.pdf. Zugegriffen: 28. Jan. 2016
  11. CDC (2015) Tips from former smokers – campaign overview. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/campaign/tips/about/campaign-overview.html. Zugegriffen: 16. März 2016
  12. Chou WS, Prestin A, Lyons C, Wen K (2013) Web 2.0 for health promotion: reviewing the current evidence. Am J Public Health 103(1):e9–e18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cunningham JA, Wild TC, Cordingley J, Van Mierlo T, Humphreys K (2009) A randomized controlled trial of an internet- based intervention for alcohol abusers. Addiction 104(12):2023–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Devos-Comby L, Salovey P (2002) Applying persuasion strategies to alter HIV-relevant thoughts and behavior. Rev Gen Psychol 6(3):287–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dijkstra A, De Vries H (1999) The development of computer-generated tailored interventions. Patient Educ Couns 36(2):193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dutta-Bergman MJ (2004) Primary sources of health information: comparisons in the domain of health attitudes, health cognitions, and health behaviors. Health Commun 16(3):273–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Pill R (2001) Presenting risk information a review of the effects of framing and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Comm 6(1):61–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, Zotov V (2007) Further insight into the perception of quantitative information: judgments of gist in treatment decisions. Med Decis Making 27(1):34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferrer RA, Klein WM (2015) Risk perceptions and health behavior. Curr Opin Psychol 5:85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fox S (2006) Online health search 2006. Pew internet & American life project. http://www.pewinternet.org/2006/10/29/online-health-search-2006/. Zugegriffen: 19. Jan. 2016
  21. Fox S, Rainie L (2002) Vital decisions: a pew internet health report. http://www.pewinternet.org/2002/05/22/vital-decisions-a-pew-internet-health-report/. Zugegriffen: 19. Jan. 2016
  22. Freeman B, Chapman S (2007) Is “YouTube” telling or selling you something? Tobacco content on the YouTube video-sharing website. Tob Control 16(3):207–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET (2013) Communicating health risks with visual aids. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 22(5):392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gaissmaier W, Wegwarth O, Skopec D, Müller AS, Broschinski S, Politi MC (2012) Numbers can be worth a thousand pictures: individual differences in understanding graphical and numerical representations of health-related information. Health Psychol 31(3):286–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2007) Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol Sci Public Interest 8(2):53–96Google Scholar
  26. Griffiths F, Lindenmeyer A, Powell J, Lowe P, Thorogood M (2006) Why are health care interventions delivered over the internet? A systematic review of the published literature. J Med Internet Res 8(2):e10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hargittai E (2002) Second-level digital divide: differences in people’s online skills. First monday, 7(4). http://firstmonday.org/article/view/942/864. Zugegriffen: 26. Jan. 2016
  28. Hawkins RP, Kreuter M, Resnicow K, Fishbein M, Dijkstra A (2008) Understanding tailoring in communicating about health. Health Educ Res 23(3):454–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK, Viswanath K (2005) Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first health information national trends survey. Arch Intern Med 165(22):2618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hoffrage U (2003) Risikokommunikation bei Brustkrebsfrüherkennung und Hormonersatztherapie. Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie 11(3):76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Internet World Stats (2016) Internet Usage in the European Union. http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats9.htm. Zugegriffen: 16. März 2016
  32. Jørgensen KJ, Gøtzsche PC (2004) Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ 328(7432):148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaner EF, Beyer F, Dickinson HO, Pienaar E, Campbell F, Schlesinger C, Heather N, Saunders J, Burnand B (2007) Effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 18(2):CD004148Google Scholar
  34. Kata A (2010) A postmodern Pandora’s box: anti-vaccination misinformation on the internet. Vaccine 28(7):1709–1716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (2002) eEurope 2002: Mitteilung der Kommission. Qualitätskriterien für Websites zum Gesundheitswesen. Brüssel. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUri-Serv/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0667:FIN:DE:PDF. Zugeriffen: 26. Jan. 2016
  36. Korda H, Itani Z (2013) Harnessing social media for health promotion and behavior change. Health Promot Pract 14(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kreps GL, Neuhauser L (2010) New directions in eHealth communication: opportunities and challenges. Patient Educ Couns 78(3):329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kreuter MW, Wray RJ (2003) Tailored and targeted health communication: strategies for enhancing information relevance. Am J Health Behav 27(1):227–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lipkus IM (2007) Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Medic Dec Making 27(5):696–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lustria MLA, Cortese J, Noar SM, Glueckauf RL (2009) Computer-tailored health interventions delivered over the Web: review and analysis of key components. Patient Educ Couns 74(2):156–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lustria MLA, Noar SM, Cortese J, Van Stee SK, Glueckauf RL, Lee J (2013) A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions. J Health Communication 18(9):1039–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (2015) Unstatistik des Monats, Wursthysterie. https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/de/presse/dossiers/unstatistik-des-monats/archiv-zur-unstatistik. Zugegriffen: 23. Jan. 2016
  43. McAfee T, Davis KC, Alexander RL, Pechacek TF, Bunnell R (2013) Effect of the first federally funded US antismoking national media campaign. Lancet 382(9909):2003–2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moorhead SA, Hazlett DE, Harrison L, Carroll JK, Irwin A, Hoving C (2013) A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. J Med Internet Res 15(4):e85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nickerson RS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev Gen Psychol 2(2):175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Noar SM (2011) Computer technology-based interventions in HIV prevention: state of the evidence and future directions for research. AIDS Care 23(5):525–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Norris P (2001) Digital divide: civic engagement, information poverty, and the internet worldwide. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peters GJY, Ruiter RaC, Kok G (2013) Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychol Rev 7(Suppl1):8–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Prensky M (2001a) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9(6):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prensky M (2001b) Digital natives, digital immigrants, part 2. On the Horizon 9(5):1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Prensky M (2009) H. sapiens digital: from digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate 5(3):1Google Scholar
  52. Prestin A, Chou WS (2014) Web 2.0 and the changing health communication environment. In: Hamilton HE, Chou WS (Hrsg) The Routledge handbook of language and health communication. Routledge, New York, S 184–197Google Scholar
  53. Renner B, Gamp M (2014a) Krisen- und Risikokommunikation. Präv Gesundheitsf 9(3):230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Renner B, Gamp M (2014b) Psychologische Grundlagen der Gesundheitskommunikation. In: Hurrelmann K, Baumann E (Hrsg) Handbuch Gesundheitskommunikation. Huber, Bern, S 64–80Google Scholar
  55. Renner B, Schupp H (2011) The perception of health risks. In: Friedman HS (Hrsg) Oxford handbook of health psychology. Oxford University Press, New York, S 637–665Google Scholar
  56. Renner B, Panzer M, Oeberst A (2007) Gesundheitsbezogene Risikokommunikation. In: Six U, Gleich U, Gimmler R (Hrsg) Kommunikationspsychologie - Medienpsychologie: Lehrbuch. Beltz, Weinheim, S 251–270Google Scholar
  57. Renner B, Gamp M, Schmälzle R, Schupp HT (2015) Health risk perception. In: Wright J (Hrsg) International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Elsevier, Oxford, S 209–702Google Scholar
  58. RKI (2015) Antworten des Robert Koch-Instituts und Paul-Ehrlich-Instituts zu den 20 häufgsten Einwänden gegen das Impfen. http://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Impfen/Bedeutung/Schutzimpfungen_20_Einwaende.html. Zugegriffen: 16. März 2016
  59. Rossmann C, Karnowski V (2014) eHealth und mHealth: Gesundheitskommunikation online und mobil. Handbuch Gesundheitskommunikation. Huber, Bern, S 271–285Google Scholar
  60. Schapira MM, Nattinger AB, McHorney CA (2001) Frequency or probability? A qualitative study of risk communication formats used in health care. Med Decis Making 21(6):459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Scullard P, Peacock C, Davies P (2010) Googling children’s health: reliability of medical advice on the internet. Arch Dis Child 95(8):580–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sheeran P, Harris PR, Epton T (2013) Does heightening risk appraisals change people’s intentions and behavior? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Psychol Bull 140(2):511–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Slovic PE (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  64. Stone ER, Sieck WR, Bull BE, Frank Yates J, Parks SC, Rush CJ (2003) Foreground:background salience: explaining the effects of graphical displays on risk avoidance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 90(1):19–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Swartz LHG, Noell JW, Schroeder SW, Ary DV (2006) A randomised control study of a fully automated internet based smoking cessation programme. Tob Control 15(1):7–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tate DF, Finkelstein EA, Khavjou O, Gustafson A (2009) Cost effectiveness of internet interventions: review and recommendations. Ann Behav Med 38(1):40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. The Lancet Retraction (2010) Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 375(9713):445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tossmann DHP, Jonas B, Tensil MD, Lang P, Strüber E (2011) A controlled trial of an internet-based intervention program for cannabis users. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 14(11):673–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, Berelowitz M, Dhillon AP, Thomson MA, Harvey P, Vaöentine A, Davies SE, Walker-Smith JA (1998) RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351(9103):637–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weinheimer HP (2011) Behördliche Risikokommunikation im Bevölkerungsschutz. Brandenburgisches Institut für Gesellschaft und Sicherheit gGmbH, PotsdamGoogle Scholar
  71. Weinstein ND (2003) Exploring the links between risk perceptions and preventive health behavior. In: Suls J, Wallston KA (Hrsg) Social psychological foundations of health and illness. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, S 22–53Google Scholar
  72. WHO (2015a) IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat. https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2015/pdfs/pr240_E.pdf. Zugegriffen: 16. März 2016
  73. WHO (2015b) Links between processed meat and colorectal cancer. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2015/processed-meat-cancer/en/. Zugegriffen: 16. März 2016
  74. Winterbottom A, Bekker HL, Conner M, Mooney A (2008) Does narrative information bias individual’s decision making? A systematic review. Soc Sci Med 67(12):2079–2088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wippermann P, Krüger J (2014) Werte-Index 2014. Deutscher Fachverlag, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  76. Wippermann P, Krüger J (2016) Werte-Index 2016. Deutscher Fachverlag, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  77. Witteman HO, Zikmund-Fisher BJ (2012) The defining characteristics of Web 2.0 and their potential influence in the online vaccination debate. Vaccine 30(25):3734–3740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Witteman HO, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Wijeysundera HC, Exe N, Dickson M, Holtzman L, Kahn VC, Zikmund-Fisher BJ (2014) Animated randomness, avatars, movement, and personalization in risk graphics. J Med Internet Res 16(3):e80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Xu X, Alexander RL, Simpson SA, Goates S, Nonnemaker JM, Davis KC, McAfee T (2015) A cost-effectiveness analysis of the first federally funded antismoking campaign. Am J Prev Med 48(3):318–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zikmund-Fisher BJ (2012) The right tool is what they need, not what we have: a taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Med Care Res Rev 70(1):37–49Google Scholar
  81. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Dickson M, Witteman HO (2011) Cool but counterproductive: interactive, web-based risk communications can backfire. J Med Internet Res 13(3):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martina Gamp
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luka-Johanna Debbeler
    • 1
  • Britta Renner
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich Psychologie, AG Psychologische Diagnostik & GesundheitspsychologieUniversität KonstanzKonstanzDeutschland

Personalised recommendations