A White Family's Oral Storytelling About Cancer Generates More Favorable Evaluations From Black American Audiences

The Pursuit of Positive Impacts: Translating Longitudinal Cancer Studies into Successful Health Communication Interventions

Over a decade ago, in the 100th issue of Health Communication (Volume 25, issues 6-7); 2010), 30 "impact" articles addressed how our collective research findings had been translated to make a positive difference for persons across diverse communities. It is laudable to develop projects helping others to enhance their awareness about healthy living, refine practical communication skills to promote behavioral change, and rely on findings to enact important practices and policies giving priority to how well and long we live in contemporary society. As a preview, however, an article entitled "Why is it so difficult to talk about impact?" raised a series of inherent challenges faced whenever we conduct our research to advance basic knowledge by pursuing meaningful translation opportunities. These efforts are constrained in various ways: A lack of motivation, ability, and training to envision and implement protocols beneficial for the public good; the need to procure adequate resources (e.g., time and money) for sustaining longitudinal investigations; dealing with misconceptions that "applied" communication research has less value than "basic" studies; and creating and managing cross-disciplinary collaborations necessary to achieve project goals. When designing interventions to change others' lives in meaningful ways, attention must also be given to balancing community outreach while avoiding unnecessary self-promotion and imposition of social scientific priorities.

The Use of Narrative in Science and Health Communication: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Many people deny science and reject health recommendations despite widely distributed facts and statistics. Didactic science and health communication is often dry, and relies on the false assumption that people make purely evidence-based decisions. Stories can be a powerful teaching tool by capturing attention and evoking emotion.

OBJECTIVE

We explore the impact and appeal of, and describe best practices for, using narrative (storytelling) versus didactic methods in science and health communication.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

No patients were involved in the review process.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Web of Science for articles either: assessing effectiveness of narrative science/health communication; assessing acceptability of (or preference for) narrative science/health communication; giving advice on how best to use narrative; and/or providing science-based explanations for how/why narrative succeeds.

RESULTS

Narrative science/health communication is effective and appealing for audiences across a variety of topics and mediums, with supporting evidence across fields such as epidemiology, neuroscience, and psychology. Whether narrative or didactic messaging is most effective depends on the topic, audience, and objective, as well as message quality. However, combining narrative with didactic methods is likely to be more effective than using either strategy alone.

DISCUSSION

Narrative science/health communication merits wider implementation and further research. Narrative communication creates openness to information by delaying the formulation of counterarguments.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Science and health communicators should collaborate with cultural and storytelling experts, work directly with their target audiences throughout the message development and testing processes, and rely on popular story elements (e.g., first-person point of view, relatable protagonists) to improve the comprehension, engagement, and thoughtful consideration of their intended audience.

FUNDING

This work was funded by Thirty Meter Telescope, with which two authors (GKS and SD) were affiliated. Otherwise, the funding organization had no role in the study and/or submission.