Home About ATSDR Press Room A-Z Index Glossary Employment Training Contact Us CDC  
ATSDR/DHHS Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Department of Health and Human Services ATSDR en Español

Search:

Toxic Substances and Health
 
Report Contents
 
Charge to the Panel
Panel Members
 
Fate & Biomonitoring
 
Sampling Methodologies
Health Endpoints
Susceptible Populations
Exposure Evaluation
Biomonitoring
 
Correlation of Data
 
Risk Management
 
Relocation Criteria
 
Reference Doses
 
Decontamination
 
Recommendations
 
Clinical Evaluation
 
Appropriate Triggers
Health Status
Environmental Medicine
 
Evaluation Protocol
 
Standardizing Lab Data
Treatment
Neurobehavioral Effects
Acute Poisoning
Suggested Evaluation
 
Overarching Issues
 
Recommendations
Field Survey
7-day Study
Dermal Absorption
Subchronic Toxicity
Pilot Study
Cohort Study
 
Selected References
 
Risk Communication
 
Workgroup
Recommendations
Operating Procedures
Management & Planning
Limitations of Strategies
Planning Steps
Identifying Populations
Preventing Exposures
Research Needs
Conclusions
 
Risk Documents
 
Cancer Policy
Risk Assessment
Communication Primer
Evaluation Primer
Psychologial Responses
 
ATSDR Resources
 
Case Studies (CSEM)
Exposure Pathways
GATHER (GIS)
HazDat Database
Health Assessments
Health Statements
Interaction Profiles
Interactive Learning
Managing Incidents
Medical Guidelines
Minimal Risk Levels
Priority List
ToxFAQs™
ToxFAQs™ CABS
Toxicological Profiles
Toxicology Curriculum
 
External Resources
 
CDC
eLCOSH
EPA
Healthfinder®
Medline Plus
NCEH
NIEHS
NIOSH
OSHA
 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Methyl Parathion Expert Panel Report
Health Education and Risk Communication Strategies


Research Needs

Although "quick and dirty" assessments of the sort encouraged in this report are essential to expedite immediate communication, efforts of this magnitude require research, just as scientific research is needed to develop effective risk management strategies. We suggest convening a small team of researchers, agency representatives, and others to consider a meaningful, manageable research agenda. (The risk communication research agenda proposed in 1995 as a result of a national symposium could serve as a generic guide to consideration of priority needs.) We strongly recommend that social science research include input from practitioners and affected people in the initial conceptualization of research so that it ultimately is as on target as possible. The following questions describe some research that may be useful, but is not meant as inclusive:

  1. What mental models do individuals hold of insects and pesticides? Before determining whether and how to integrate IPM messages into prevention, it is essential to appreciate cognitive and emotional components of individual perception. A literature review, particularly of the environmental education literature, is an essential first step. Without an appreciation of how people think and feel about these issues, it will be difficult to construct effective messages.
  2. What variables determine the difficulty or ease of community interventions? There is a substantial social psychology literature that speaks to why some communities are more difficult to mobilize than others. This research might serve as the basis for defining a study to guide agency intervention efforts.
  3. What evaluation tools will be most useful to provide feedback on agency interventions and community-level initiatives? There has been considerable discussion of the development of useful methodologies to evaluate such efforts and a variety of models have been developed. Ideally, various evaluative efforts would be put in place. The most useful evaluative designs may piggyback on existing agency data collection to reduce the need for substantial additional resources. Although agencies have a tendency to favor quantitative research, ethnography should also be considered to develop meaningful case studies from which lessons learned can be derived.
  4. What organizational factors and coordination facilitate effective intervention? One of the most difficult aspects of multi-agency interventions is coordination among agencies. Ways to improve such efforts have been studied by organizational researchers, largely in the corporate sector. As more such multi-agency efforts become essential, organizational insights might become increasingly useful.

The above topics are merely some initial thoughts. We strongly recommend that agencies fund meaningful research that will provide useful insights, using researchers with extensive background in the issues.

Top of Page