Evaluating the Mental Models Approach to Developing a Risk Communication: A Scoping Review of the Evidence. Issue 11 (17th March 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Boase, Nick; White, Mathew; Gaze, William; Redshaw, Clare
• Is Part Of: Risk analysis. Volume 37:Issue 11(2017)
• Page Start: 2132
• Page End: 2149
• Publication Date: 2017-03-17
• Subjects: Mental models -- risk communication -- scoping review; Technology -- Risk assessment -- Periodicals; 658.403
• DOI: 10.1111/risa.12789
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0272-4332

Abstract

Abstract: Risk communication is fundamental in ensuring people are equipped with the knowledge needed to navigate varied risks. One generally well‐regarded framework for the development of such communications is the mental models approach to risk communication (MMARC). Developed during the 1990s, the MMARC has been applied to a range of health, technological, and environmental risks. However, as yet, we know of no attempt to collate and review articles that evaluated communications developed using the MMARC. This article took a first step at addressing this gap by conducting a scoping review that aimed to begin to explore the fidelity with which the approach has been applied, explore whether there appeared to be sufficient studies to warrant a future systematic review, and identify future research questions. Although the initial search found over 100 articles explicitly applying the MMARC, only 12 of these developed a risk‐related communication that was tested against a control (and thus included in the current review). All studies reported a positive effect of the MMARC versus control communication for at least some of the outcome measures (knowledge being the most prevalent). However, there was wide variation between studies including type of control, outcomes assessed, and only five studies reported adopting a randomized design. The review highlights both the need for greater fidelity in the way future studies operationalize the MMARC approach, and suggests that a full‐scale systematic review of the MMARC literature appears justified, especially given the possibility of a large gray literature in this area.