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. ^

THE DISCHARGED PSYCHIATRIC PATIENT: POST-HOSPITAL ADJUSTMENT AND FACTORS AFFECTING REHOSPITALIZATION

Discharged psychiatric patients were studied six months post-discharge to determine those demographic, social and clinical characteristics affecting positive or negative adjustment and the degree to which the use of mental health services and medication compliance mediated the effects. With the exception of those with primary or secondary diagnoses of OBS, substance abuse or mental retardation, sixty-three psychiatric subjects between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four were chosen from all admissions into the hospital and interviewed six months after discharge using a specially designed questionnaire.^ The subjects' adjustment to community living was found to be marginal. Although not engaged in destructive activities, over half were living with their family members who supported them financially and emotionally. Most were unemployed and had been so for a long time. Others worked sporadically and frequently changed residences. Most did have substantial social ties with extended family and with friends with whom they interacted regularly, but one-fourth were socially isolated. Almost three-quarters continued to obtain regular mental health services after discharge and followed medication instructions under the supervision of their physician. The use of mental health services after discharge and the use of medication did not appear to affect the subjects' community adaption or their rate of rehospitalization.^ Forty percent of those discharged were rehospitalized by the end of the follow-up period. Four levels of risk of rehospitalization emerged. The highest risk was associated with a history of five or more prior hospitalizations, living alone, and social isolation. One third or more of the subjects expressed a need for more counseling, leisure time activities, case-manager assistance, vocational guidance, supervised housing, and placement into a transitional residential treatment program.^ Recommendations were made to enhance the ability to predict recidivism, to develop interorganizational casework management programs linking the patient and family to the community mental health system and to create computerized tracking and monitoring programs that systematically report patient treatment regimen and progress cross-sectionally and longitudinally. ^