Communicating to enhance trust and manage risk perceptions during cancer cluster investigations: an exploratory study of information sources and formats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cancer is a dreaded disease. When suspected cancer clusters are reported, they garner considerable public attention. Communicating cancer risks transparently without triggering undue alarm during cluster investigations is a significant undertaking for investigators. A failure to manage public anxiety can lead to an erosion of trust in government officials.Aims This exploratory research aimed to examine the effects of information about a cancer cluster investigation–that varied by information source and format–on perceptions of cancer risk and information trustworthiness. We also explored the impact of information with different risk framing on cancer risk perceptions. Lastly, we examined these relationships across various psychosocial and demographic factors.Methods We recruited 172 Canadian adults to participate in an online survey and experiment. In the experiment (2x4 factorial design), participants were randomly assigned to view one of eight vignettes about a cancer cluster in a fictional community (general risk framing). Vignettes differed by information source (government, news) and format (contextual information, personal stories, both, neither). Participants reported cancer concern and information trustworthiness. We also measured concern after presenting all participants with a hypothetical scenario about a cancer cluster in their own neighbourhood (personal risk framing), and again after providing them with reassuring information about the cluster (personal and reassuring risk framing).Results Participants viewing the government-authored vignettes and the vignettes containing contextual information had higher odds of perceiving the information as trustworthy compared to news-authored vignettes (OR 2.08, 95%CI 1.13–3.91) and vignettes containing neither format (OR 2.37, 95%CI 0.99–5.83), respectively. Of the eight vignettes, those authored by a government-source and containing contextual information elicited concern about cancer most frequently during the experiment (general risk framing). After providing reassuring information to participants during the hypothetical scenario (personal and reassuring risk framing), news-authored vignettes containing personal stories elicited the most frequent reports of concern. Associations appeared to vary by education.Discussion Results suggest government officials should provide citizens with information that is reassuring and contains contextual details to alleviate concerns and enhance trust during cancer cluster investigations. These findings, with follow-up research, could have implications for health departments responding to community concerns about cancer.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".