Lekhnath Ghimire, Charisse Vitto, Tanushree Das, Edward Waller, Nicholas Priest, Margot Hurlbert
{"title":"From Knowledge Gaps to Trust: Investigating Public Views on Low-dose Radiation.","authors":"Lekhnath Ghimire, Charisse Vitto, Tanushree Das, Edward Waller, Nicholas Priest, Margot Hurlbert","doi":"10.1097/HP.0000000000002159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study presents a qualitative analysis of eight focus groups conducted in November 2024 to examine public perceptions, misconceptions, and informational needs related to low-dose radiation (LDR). Participants from diverse backgrounds discussed trust in science, perceived risk, personal experience, media influence, and expert communication. Initial uncertainty and skepticism were common, with many conflating LDR with high-dose exposure and nuclear accidents. Conflicting media portrayals, limited educational resources, and distrust of industry-funded research compounded this uncertainty. Trust in scientific authority was conditional: participants valued academic and government-backed research but were cautious of findings influenced by politics or corporations. Canadian studies were generally perceived as more credible than US research due to differences in regulatory and accountability frameworks. Risk perception was not static; expert presentations clarified the natural presence of radiation and its medical and environmental applications, leading to shifts in understanding in some groups, though skepticism persisted in others. Personal experiences, such as undergoing radiation therapy, and media representations shaped interpretations of risk. Across all groups, participants emphasized the need for transparent, emotionally resonant, and audience-specific communication. Recommendations included using trained science communicators, leveraging multimedia tools and social media platforms, and providing public health resources such as radon test kits and more precise risk-benefit explanations. Findings suggest that knowledge, experience, media, and institutional trust influence the public's understanding of LDR. Targeted, empathetic communication, combined with transparency in research, can foster a more informed public discourse. These insights have implications for public health communication, policymaking, and strategies to engage audiences on complex scientific topics (e.g., LDR) in a skeptical, media-saturated environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":12976,"journal":{"name":"Health physics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health physics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/HP.0000000000002159","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This study presents a qualitative analysis of eight focus groups conducted in November 2024 to examine public perceptions, misconceptions, and informational needs related to low-dose radiation (LDR). Participants from diverse backgrounds discussed trust in science, perceived risk, personal experience, media influence, and expert communication. Initial uncertainty and skepticism were common, with many conflating LDR with high-dose exposure and nuclear accidents. Conflicting media portrayals, limited educational resources, and distrust of industry-funded research compounded this uncertainty. Trust in scientific authority was conditional: participants valued academic and government-backed research but were cautious of findings influenced by politics or corporations. Canadian studies were generally perceived as more credible than US research due to differences in regulatory and accountability frameworks. Risk perception was not static; expert presentations clarified the natural presence of radiation and its medical and environmental applications, leading to shifts in understanding in some groups, though skepticism persisted in others. Personal experiences, such as undergoing radiation therapy, and media representations shaped interpretations of risk. Across all groups, participants emphasized the need for transparent, emotionally resonant, and audience-specific communication. Recommendations included using trained science communicators, leveraging multimedia tools and social media platforms, and providing public health resources such as radon test kits and more precise risk-benefit explanations. Findings suggest that knowledge, experience, media, and institutional trust influence the public's understanding of LDR. Targeted, empathetic communication, combined with transparency in research, can foster a more informed public discourse. These insights have implications for public health communication, policymaking, and strategies to engage audiences on complex scientific topics (e.g., LDR) in a skeptical, media-saturated environment.
期刊介绍:
Health Physics, first published in 1958, provides the latest research to a wide variety of radiation safety professionals including health physicists, nuclear chemists, medical physicists, and radiation safety officers with interests in nuclear and radiation science. The Journal allows professionals in these and other disciplines in science and engineering to stay on the cutting edge of scientific and technological advances in the field of radiation safety. The Journal publishes original papers, technical notes, articles on advances in practical applications, editorials, and correspondence. Journal articles report on the latest findings in theoretical, practical, and applied disciplines of epidemiology and radiation effects, radiation biology and radiation science, radiation ecology, and related fields.