![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Background: Scientific literacy is the collection of skills and abilities to understand and use science and technology, including some awareness of the process of science. Scientific literacy is a key ingredient of health literacy, which allows people to make informed health decisions. Similar to other public health recommendations, H1N1 recommendations contain scientific information and rely on public acceptance of scientific processes to identify the best course of action. How much scientific literacy the public needs to accept and adopt public health recommendations is unknown.
Program background: In 2009, CDC created materials to communicate recommended actions that individuals could take to help slow the spread of H1N1 flu. The recommendations reflected authoritative, scientific information and were widely covered in mass and social media. We conducted a content analysis of H1N1 flu information products to assess the scientific concepts used to explain H1N1 flu prevention recommendations in government, mass media, and user-generated information for the public and then conducted formative research with members of the public to explore how scientific literacy influenced their acceptance and adoption of recommendations.
Evaluation Methods and Results: For the content analysis, we analyzed 126 unique information products, including CDC products (e.g., media briefings, fact sheets), media stories (e.g., broadcast news transcripts, online news), and user-generated content (e.g., blogs, web videos). Using a scientific literacy framework, all products were coded for 6 factors: jargon (e.g., technical terms), ambiguous content, use of numbers and statistics, conveyance of scientific uncertainty, use of metaphors, and other scientific language. In-depth interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with 36 participants. Questions explored understanding of scientific concepts, attitudes about H1N1 flu, and opinions about select materials and recommended actions. The content analysis showed that all products were full of jargon, most of which was not defined or was ambiguous. Illness from the flu was often described as ranging from “mild” to “severe” without supporting information about how to interpret those qualitative descriptors. Scientific uncertainty and risk were frequent topics. Numbers were commonly used but context to help understand the numbers was lacking. In the formative research, participants identified many jargon terms and ambiguous concepts in H1N1 flu materials, noting that some terms were too complex or confusing while others were completely unfamiliar. Numerical data were more likely to be correctly interpreted when sufficient context was provided. Participants preferred materials that were detailed, attention-getting, and contained actionable steps they could take.
Conclusions: As the scientific literacy framework suggests, communication that included CDC’s H1N1 flu prevention recommendations reflected scientific concepts and language that have implications for the public’s understanding of information as well as action. Consumer research findings support materials that include language that is familiar to the audience, numbers that have contextual information to aid interpretation, and information that is attention-getting and actionable.
Implications for research and/or practice: Future materials will need to avoid jargon and ambiguous concepts, include context with numerical data, and explain risk and benefit. Scientists and communicators should work together to ensure that information has scientific literacy and health literacy in mind.