Introduction
Risk communication is generally regarded as one of the key parts of the effective public healthcare management. Therefore, it is of an essential importance for warning the population, preventing pandemics or other healthcare risks, as well as communicating protection measures. In general, risk communication is used frequently, and the general means that are used for this will be discussed in this paper.
Risk Communication
Risk communication instances are mainly associated with pandemics and other related risks. The key aims of the risk communication strategy generally depend on the nature of a risk, or a disaster, and Nielson et.al. (2005, p. 279) emphasized the following statement:
Sound and thoughtful risk communication can assist public officials in preventing ineffective, fear-driven, and potentially damaging public responses to serious crises such as unusual disease outbreaks and bio-terrorism. Moreover, appropriate risk communication procedures foster the trust and confidence that are vital in a crisis situation. There are steps public officials can take in advance of any incident to better prepare communities, risk managers, government spokespersons, public health officials, the news media, physicians, and hospital personnel to respond to the challenges of managing such crises.
The latest instance of risk communication was linked with the disaster in Japan. The earthquakes are comparatively regular in Japan, however, the risk of nuclear contamination could not be concealed. Therefore, media was the key tool of risk communication, as there was a necessity to communicate the disaster quickly, with the highest efficiency possible. However, the urgency of the messages, as well as the nature of communication caused immense panic in the world, as the countries became seriously worried on the matters of thee quality of imported products.
Public response for the message was the most suitable for the overall situation, as people became ready for the evacuation. As for the world community, the risk communication caused the wave of reaction associated with volunteering. On the other hand, people became afraid of the possible nuclear contamination, and some may avoid Japanese goods. As it is emphasized by Ratzan (2004, p. 5):
Applied to risk, communication might be defined broadly as a social process of information exchange between any entities in society on any form of risk (individual, social, political, environmental) that is purposeful or non-purposeful. In early risk management literature a narrower definition had become more widespread according to which risk communication ‘usually focuses on an intentional transfer of information designed to respond to public concerns or public needs related to real or perceived hazards.
In the light of this statement, risk communication associated with the disaster in Japan could not be communicated otherwise. As for the possible alternatives of risk communication, these are selected in accordance with the event. (Berry, 2004) Considering the nature of the communication in Japan, this should be alarming for warning the Japanese population and the global community, and preventing mistakes. This may be also regarded as the necessary coordination tool that is important for the overall regulation of risk mitigation and decrease of the harm caused by earthquake and damages on the Nuclear Station.
Conclusion
Risk communication principles and tools that are generally used for regulating risk mitigation efforts are selected in accordance with the nature of a risk or a disaster. The risk communication process arranged in Japan may be regarded as the most effective tool for the regarded circumstances.
Reference List
Berry, D. C. (2004). Risk, Communication and Health Psychology. Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.
Nielson, N. L., Kleffner, A. E., & Lee, R. B. (2005). The Evolution of the Role of Risk Communication in Effective Risk Management. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 8(2), 279
Ratzan, S. C. (2004). Strategic Health Communication and Social Marketing on Risk Issues. Journal of health communication, 4(1), 1-6.