Injury and risk-taking behavior - a systematic review

There is a substantial body of work in the scientific literature discussing the role of risk-taking behavior in the causation of injury. Despite the quantity of diverse writings on the subject most is in the form of theoretical commentaries. This review was conducted to critically assess the empirical evidence supporting the association between injury and risk-taking behavior. The review found six case-control studies and one retrospective cohort study, which met all the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the diversity of the independent and outcome variables in each of the studies reviewed. Overall the review found that risk-taking behavior, however it is measured, is associated with an increased chance of sustaining an injury except in the case of high skilled, risk-taking sports where the effect may be in the other direction. Drawing specific conclusions from the research presented in this review is difficult without an agreed conceptual framework for examining risk-taking behavior and injury. Considerable work needs to be done to provide a convincing evidence base on which to build public health interventions around risk behavior. However, sufficient evidence exists to suggest that effort in this area may be beneficial for the health of the community. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Risk taking from the participant's perspective: The case of driving and accident risk

Although perceived health risk plays a prominent role in theories of health behavior. its empirical role in risk taking is less clear. In Study 1 (N = 129), 2 measures of drivers' risk-taking behavior were found to be unrelated to self-estimates of accident concern but to be related to self-ratings of driving skill and the perceived thrill of driving. In Study 2 (N = 405), out of a wide range of potential influences, accident concern had the weakest relationship with risk taking. The authors concluded that although health risk is a key feature in many theories of health behavior and a central focus for researchers and policy makers, it may not be such a prominent factor for those actually taking the risk.

Science-policy in environmental and health risk assessment: if we cannot do without, can we do better?

How can empirical evidence of adverse effects from exposure to noxious agents, which is often incomplete and uncertain, be used most appropriately to protect human health? We examine several important questions on the best uses of empirical evidence in regulatory risk management decision-making raised by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s science-policy concerning uncertainty and variability in human health risk assessment. In our view, the US EPA (and other agencies that have adopted similar views of risk management) can often improve decision-making by decreasing reliance on default values and assumptions, particularly when causation is uncertain. This can be achieved by more fully exploiting decision-theoretic methods and criteria that explicitly account for uncertain, possibly conflicting scientific beliefs and that can be fully studied by advocates and adversaries of a policy choice, in administrative decision-making involving risk assessment. The substitution of decision-theoretic frameworks for default assumption-driven policies also allows stakeholder attitudes toward risk to be incorporated into policy debates, so that the public and risk managers can more explicitly identify the roles of risk-aversion or other attitudes toward risk and uncertainty in policy recommendations. Decision theory provides a sound scientific way explicitly to account for new knowledge and its effects on eventual policy choices. Although these improvements can complicate regulatory analyses, simplifying default assumptions can create substantial costs to society and can prematurely cut off consideration of new scientific insights (e.g., possible beneficial health effects from exposure to sufficiently low 'hormetic' doses of some agents). In many cases, the administrative burden of applying decision-analytic methods is likely to be more than offset by improved effectiveness of regulations in achieving desired goals. Because many foreign jurisdictions adopt US EPA reasoning and methods of risk analysis, it may be especially valuable to incorporate decision-theoretic principles that transcend local differences among jurisdictions.