Planning and implementation efficacy as a determinant of health risk communication outcomes: Case studies of the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)

This study was conducted under the auspices of the Subcommittee on Risk Communication and Education of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs (CCEHRP) to determine how Public Health Service (PHS) agencies are communicating information about health risk, what factors contributed to effective communication efforts, and what specific principles, strategies, and practices best promote more effective health risk communication outcomes.^ Member agencies of the Subcommittee submitted examples of health risk communication activities or decisions they perceived to be effective and some examples of cases they thought had not been as effective as desired. Of the 10 case studies received, 7 were submitted as examples of effective health risk communication, and 3, as examples of less effective communication.^ Information contained in the 10 case studies describing the respective agencies' health risk communication strategies and practices was compared with EPA's Seven Cardinal Rules of Risk Communication, since similar rules were not found in any PHS agency. EPA's rules are: (1) Accept and involve the public as a legitimate partner. (2) Plan carefully and evaluate your efforts. (3) Listen to the public's specific concerns. (4) Be honest, frank, and open. (5) Coordinate and collaborate with other credible sources. (6) Meet the needs of the media. (7) Speak clearly and with compassion.^ On the basis of case studies analysis, the Subcommittee, in their attempts to design and implement effective health risk communication campaigns, identified a number of areas for improvement among the agencies. First, PHS agencies should consider developing a focus specific to health risk communication (i.e., office or specialty resource). Second, create a set of generally accepted practices and guidelines for effective implementation and evaluation of PHS health risk communication activities and products. Third, organize interagency initiatives aimed at increasing awareness and visibility of health risk communication issues and trends within and between PHS agencies.^ PHS agencies identified some specific implementation strategies the CCEHRP might consider pursuing to address the major recommendations. Implementation strategies common to PHS agencies emerged in the following five areas: (1) program development, (2) building partnerships, (3) developing training, (4) expanding information technologies, and (5) conducting research and evaluation. ^

Family stress, coping, communication, and adaptation in unintended adolescent pregnancy

Objective. This study examines post-crisis family stress, coping, communication, and adaptation using the Double ABC-X Model of Family Adaptation in families with a pregnant or postpartum adolescent living at home. ^ Methods. Ninety-eight pregnant and parenting adolescents between ages 14 and 18 years (Group 1 at 20 or more weeks gestation; Group 2 at delivery and 8 weeks postpartum) and their parent(s) completed instruments congruent with the model to measure family stress, coping, communication, and adaptation. Descriptive family data was obtained. Mother-daughter data was analyzed for differences between subjects and within subjects using paired t-tests. Correlational analysis was used to examine relationships among variables. ^ Results. More than 90% of families were Hispanic. There were no significant differences between mother and daughter mean scores for family stress or communication. Adolescent coping was not significantly correlated to family coping at any interval. Adolescent family adaptation scores were significantly lower than mothers' scores at delivery and 8 weeks postpartum. Mean individual ratings of family variables did not differ significantly between delivery and 8 weeks postpartum. Simultaneous multiple regression analysis showed that stress, coping, and communication significantly influenced adaptation for mothers and daughters at all three intervals. The relative contributions of the three independent variables exhibited different patterns for mothers and daughters. Parent-adolescent communication accounted for most of the variability in adaptation for daughters at all three intervals. Daughters' family stress ratings were significant for adaptability (p = .01) during the pregnancy and for cohesion (p = .03) at delivery. Adolescent coping (p = .03) was significant for cohesion at 8 weeks postpartum. Family stress was a significant influence at all three intervals for mothers' ratings of family adaptation. Parent-adolescent communication was significant for mother's perception of both family cohesion (p < .001) and adaptability (p < .001) at delivery and 8 weeks, but not during pregnancy. ^ Conclusions. Mothers' and daughters' ratings of family processes were similar regarding family stress and communication, but were significantly different for family adaptation. Adolescent coping may not reflect family coping. Family communication is a powerful component in family functioning and may be an important focus for interventions with adolescents and parents. ^