Communicating Statistics and Risk

According to this online article, journalists and scientists often present risk and probabilities in ways that cloud the intended message. The author explains that to get audience attention and trust, writers must clearly and accurately communicate scientific findings and their relevance, which often means that material from a scientific article must be translated into something widely understandable.

In the section on translating the evidence for readers, the author recommends the following:

1. Look for the claims in the research results section(s) of the article, rather than in the section labelled "Abstract", that will most interest the audience.
2. Remember that while journalists put large claims and important facts ('news') at the very beginning of an article, scientific articles place the methodology, cautions, and supporting evidence first.
3. Translate quantitative data into the closest equivalent in everyday speech and place the specific findings in parentheses.
4. Unless it is an exact match, like one-third and 33 per cent, include the specific statistic. Also try to include the margin of error (often called the confidence interval) because it indicates the reliability of the evidence.
5. Where percentages can made more accessible by doing the calculation for readers, report, for example, "43 of the 215 people sampled (20 per cent)". This accommodates multiple ways of understanding the evidence, making it easily accessible to more people.
6. Remember that the journalist is responsible for accurately and clearly making the conclusions and supporting evidence fully understandable to an audience at their level of literacy and numeracy skills.

In the section on individual versus population risk, the author cautions: be extra careful to ensure the readers' understanding that a general population estimate of risk, exposure, or probability may not accurately describe individual situations. Also, provide the important information that explains variation in individual risk. This might include age, diet, literacy level, location, education level, income, race and ethnicity, and a host of other genetic and lifestyle factors. The example provided in the article uses breast cancer statistics, which are often reported as "one in eight women will get breast cancer". However, as stated here, "Using the statistic 'one in eight' makes a strong headline but can dramatically misrepresent individual breast cancer risk. Throughout her life, a woman's actual risk of breast cancer varies for many reasons, and is rarely ever actually one in eight...Journalists may report only the aggregate lifetime risk of one in eight because they are short of space. But such reporting incorrectly assumes that readers are uninterested in, or can't comprehend, the underlying statistics. It is critically important to find a way, through words or graphics, to report as complete a picture as possible."


On absolute and relative risk, the author points out that "[c]hoosing whether to use absolute risk [the probability of something happening] or relative risk [comparison between risk in two different situations] can make the same risk appear substantially different....Best practice is to clearly and concisely communicate both, along with the implications of those differences."

The danger of comparing risks is exemplified by a quotation from an official who compared the risk of ingesting Escherichia coli from spinach with contracting mad cow disease and with death from a highway accident. The article discourages comparing unlike risks and supports comparing different risks sparingly and with great caution because of differing audience interpretation of metaphor, particularly when multiple cultures are involved. "Metaphors mean different things to different people."

The article concludes that a journalist must start where the audience is - particularly in terms of language, numeracy skills, and culture. "Know your audience and check back with them early and often. You can start doing this by asking colleagues, friends and family. Even better, occasionally gather a group of your audience and discuss how science is reported. You will learn what they like, dislike, understand and want to understand. When you communicate risk, recognise the limits of your skills and ask for clarification, rather than blindly repeating a technical specialist. Do not be afraid to call the author of a journal article and ask for further explanation. Try to establish a good relationship with scholars you can ask for help." In order to spread accurate knowledge and keep the audience’s attention and trust, the journalist needs to "decipher complex science and clearly communicate that information. First, get the basics correct. Then, when relevant, add complexity in a way that both you and your readers can fully understand, evaluate and use."