English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The communication of risk information is a fundamental aspect of nearly all health promotion interventions. However, no consensus exists regarding the most effective way to provide people with risk information. We will review and evaluate the relative merits of two approaches to risk communication. One approach relies on the presentation of numerical information regarding the probability of a health problem occurring, whereas the other relies on the presentation of information about the antecedents and consequences of a health problem. Because people have considerable difficulty understanding and using quantitative information, the effectiveness of interventions that rely solely on numerical probability information has been limited. Interventions that provide people with a broader informational context in which to think about a health problem have had greater success systematically influencing perceptions of personal risk but have several important limitations. However, before any final conclusions can be drawn regarding the relative merits of different communication strategies, investigators must agree on the specific criteria that should be used to identify an effective intervention.

Treating People With Information: an Analysis and Review of Approaches to Communicating Health Risk Information