From Knowledge Gaps to Trust: Investigating Public Views on Low-dose Radiation.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q4 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
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.

从知识差距到信任:调查公众对低剂量辐射的看法。
本研究对2024年11月进行的八个焦点小组进行了定性分析,以检查公众对低剂量辐射(LDR)的看法、误解和信息需求。来自不同背景的与会者讨论了对科学的信任、感知风险、个人经历、媒体影响和专家沟通。最初的不确定和怀疑是常见的,许多人将低致病性与高剂量暴露和核事故混为一谈。相互矛盾的媒体描述、有限的教育资源以及对行业资助研究的不信任加剧了这种不确定性。对科学权威的信任是有条件的:参与者重视学术和政府支持的研究,但对受政治或企业影响的研究结果持谨慎态度。由于监管和问责框架的差异,加拿大的研究通常被认为比美国的研究更可信。风险感知不是静态的;专家发言澄清了辐射的自然存在及其在医疗和环境方面的应用,导致一些群体的认识发生转变,但另一些群体仍持怀疑态度。个人经历(如接受放射治疗)和媒体报道形成了对风险的解释。在所有小组中,与会者都强调需要透明、情感共鸣和针对特定受众的沟通。建议包括使用训练有素的科学传播者,利用多媒体工具和社交媒体平台,以及提供公共卫生资源,如氡检测试剂盒和更精确的风险-效益解释。研究结果表明,知识、经验、媒体和机构信任影响公众对LDR的理解。有针对性的、移情的沟通,加上研究的透明度,可以促进更知情的公共话语。这些见解对公共卫生传播、政策制定以及在一个多疑的、媒体饱和的环境中吸引受众参与复杂科学主题(如LDR)的战略具有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health physics
Health physics 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
324
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书