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
 
Primer Contents
En español
 
Preface
About the Primer
 
Principles & Techniques
 
Types of Evaluation
Evaluation Design
Measure of Effectiveness
Barriers to Evaluation
 
Evaluation & Research
 
Designing and Testing
Review and Pretesting
Pretest Methods
Print Materials
Sample Survey
Group Case Study
Pretest Results
Using Pretest Results
Special Populations
Risk Message Checklist
 
Outcomes & Impacts
 
Assessment Questions
Evaluation Options
Midcourse Reviews
Have We Succeeded?
Evaluation Case Example
Evaluation Action Plan
Effective Program
 
Selected References
 
Risk Documents
 
Cancer Policy
Risk Assessment
Communication Primer
Methyl Parathion
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
Evaluation Primer on
Health Risk Communication Programs
Why Evaluate Risk Communication Programs?


(Regan and Desvousges 1990)

Evaluation is a purposeful effort to determine effectiveness. It is essential to communication because it provides feedback about whether risk messages are received, understood, and internalized by those for whom they are intended. Without evaluation, it is impossible for communicators to chose those messages and channels that use limited resources more effectively. Instead, communicators are left to their own subjective interpretations about what works and what does not. A lack of evaluation, therefore, affects both quality of the specific risk communication effort and the primary goal—improving public health.

The ideal way to apply evaluation findings is to improve ongoing risk communication activities. In addition, evaluation is valuable for other uses.

  • To provide evidence of need for additional funds or other resources
  • To increase institutional understanding of and support for risk communication activities
  • To encourage ongoing cooperative ventures with other organizations
  • To avoid making the same mistakes in future risk communication efforts

[Top of Page]