Seafood ChoiCeS

Seafood Choices: Balancing Benefits and Risks
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11762.html
0 SEAFOOD ChOICES
Mark et al., 2000; Ryan and DeStefano, 2000) and the evaluation of communications
(Schriver, 1990; Spyridakis, 2000); the paucity of information
available regarding both formative (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration
focus groups) and summative (e.g., overall effects on attitudes or consumption)
evaluation of national seafood consumption advisories suggests that
agencies should devote additional attention and resources to evaluation.
The committee touches on the importance of evaluation in the context of
partnerships, to assess whether communications are appropriate and effective
for target populations.
STEP 3: DESIGNING COMMUNICATIONS TO SUPPORT
INFORMED DECISION-MAKING
Interactive Health Communication
In seafood consumption, “one size does not fit all,” and messages about
consumption often have to be individualized for different groups. There is
a need to consider developing tools for consumers such as web-based, interactive
programs that provide easy-to-use seafood consumption decision
tools. Real-time, interactive decision support that is easily available to the
public has the potential to increase informed actions for some portion of the
population. In the absence of federal investment in such tools, some organizations
have invested in online mercury calculators or consumption guides
(Table 6-1). Many of these focus solely on risks from seafood consumption,
and while well-intentioned, may be providing misleading information, for
example, by interpreting the Reference Dose (RfD) as a “bright line” to
determine whether consuming seafood puts a consumer at risk.
One model for developing comprehensive consumer tools is a health
risk appraisal (HRA) that would allow individuals to enter their own specific
information and would provide feedback in the form of appropriate
information or advice to guide the user’s health actions, such as seafood
consumption. There are a myriad of health risk appraisal tools commercially
available; of those in the public domain the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) has extensive experience in the development and use
of HRAs (SOURCE: http://www.cdc.gov). In order to be most useful and
appropriately directed, tools such as the HRA must be based on a body of
knowledge that substantiates both benefits and risks. This kind of approach
can be seen in the Clinical Guide to Pre enti e Ser ices from the Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), which adopted recommendations
based on medical evidence and the strength of that evidence in practice
(USPSTF, 2001–2004).
The Clinical Guide to Pre enti e Ser ices is an example of an interactive
health communication approach to providing one-on-one guidance, along
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.