Public Trust in Scientific Experts on Obesity

NRSA Trainees Research Conference Slide Presentation (Text Version)

By Sara Bleich and Robert Blendon, Sc.D.

---

On June 24, 2006, Sara Bleich and Robert Blendon made a slide presentation on health services research doctoral training competencies at the 12th Annual National Research Service Award (NRSA) Trainees Research Conference. This is the text version of the slide presentation. Select to access the PowerPoint® slides (64 KB).

---

Slide 1

Public Trust in Scientific Experts on Obesity

Sara Bleich
Robert Blendon, Sc.D.

Slide 2

Background

• Society is characterized by a growing number of risks.
• Trust is an important factor for understanding public perception and acceptance of risks.
• The public is unlikely to change attitudes towards a particular risk if they do not trust the source of information.
• ~400,000 of preventable deaths in the U.S. are due to poor diet and physical inactivity.

Slide 3

Research Questions

• What are the predictors of trust in scientific experts? Do they vary by the type of expert?
  • Obesity scientists.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists.
  • Scientists in general.
• Does trust predict public willingness to pay attention to scientific advice?

Slide 4

Data and Analysis

Data Sources:

• Harvard School of Public Health Obesity Survey, 2005 (N=2,033).
• General Social Survey, 2004 (N=2,812).

Analysis:

• Logistic regression.

Slide 5

Predictors of Trust in Experts

Independent Variable	Trust in experts on obesity	Trust in CDC on obesity	Confidence in Scientific Comm.
Female	1.55 (.20) ***	1.35 (.19) *	0.78 (.13)
Black	0.69 (.14)	0.86 (.21)	0.18 (.06) ***
Hispanic	0.55 (.14) *	0.82 (.24)	0.50 (.16) *
Education	1.16 (.06) **	1.18 (.07) ***	1.55 (.12) ***
Age	0.86 (.03) ***	0.94 (.04)	0.94 (.05)
Democrat	1.30 (.20)	1.21 (.21)	1.07 (.22)
Independent	0.80 (.12)	0.84 (.15)	0.67 (.14)
SR Weight	0.80 (.08) *	1.02 (.11)
Physical Activity	1.08 (.15)	0.94 (.15)
Fruit & Veg. Intake	0.88 (.12)	0.98 (.15)
Perceived Risk	1.19 (.17)	1.09 (.15)
Trust
N	1638	1266	829

*   p < .05.
**  p < .01.
*** p < .001.

Note: Results reported as odds ratios.

Slide 6

Predictors of Attention to Experts

Independent Variable	Public Attention to experts
Female	1.69 (.23) ***
Black	1.36 (.31)
Hispanic	1.44 (.38)
Education	1.31 (.07) ***
Age	1.11 (.05) *
Democrat	1.54 (.27) *
Independent	1.03 (.17)
SR Weight	1.28 (.13) *
Physical Activity	0.95 (.14)
Fruit & Veg. Intake	1.01 (.15)
Perceived Risk	1.18 (.18)
Trust	4.73 (.67) ***
N	1633

*   p < .05.
**  p < .01.
*** p < .001.

Slide 7

Policy Implications

• Scientists should focus their messages on the most receptive groups.
• The scientific community must maintain public trust in all actions and activities.
• The target audience does not trust experts but pays attention to them.

Slide 8

Conclusions

• Trust in scientists is not uniform across sociodemographic groups.
• Public trust in experts is not entirely dependent on the type of scientific expert.
• Public trust is critical to public willingness to pay attention to experts.
• More research is needed to make the current messages more effective to the target population.

Current as of August 2006

---

Internet Citation:

Public Trust in Scientific Experts on Obesity. Text Version of a Slide Presentation. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/training/bleichtxt.htm

---