Procedure Individuals from a database of over 8,000 con- tacts maintained by a local marketing research firm were randomly called and asked to com- plete a brief telephone screener. These individ- uals were previously solicited by the firm via advertisements, mailers, and shopping center kiosks and were demographically representa- tive of the region. Interested individuals who met the selection criteria were placed into the appropriate focus group by ZIP Code until enough participants were recruited. Focus groups were conducted on-site at the firm after informed consent and lasted approx- imately 90 min. To reduce bias, discussions were facilitated by a trained focus group mod- erator who was not part of the research team. Participants received compensation of $75, per the standard practices of the marketing research firm. Focus groups were videotaped, and the content was transcribed verbatim into Microsoft Word to facilitate data analysis. Measures We developed a content guide with open- ended questions and follow-up prompts on environmental concerns and health for the focus groups with the Lucas County resi- dents. Responses to the questions pertaining to perceptions of information on HABs were examined in this secondary data analysis (Table 1). Data Analysis We applied the rigorous method of content analysis from Colaizzi (1978), including deductive, inductive, and integrative phases, to make sense of the participants’ information needs and sources. In the deductive phase, the data were converted from a narrative form to more manageable units. All original con- tent transcripts of the data were read by the first two authors, which enabled the authors to acquire a sense of participant descriptions of their information needs and sources. The data were re-read by each author and then sorted and coded by extracting significant statements to determine category schemes. The inductive phase entailed individually labeling themes that emerged from these category schemes. Discussion of themes among the authors occurred until a consen- sus was reached. This collaborative process helped to establish the credibility of the find- ings. The relationships between and within
TABLE 1
Focus Group Content Guide Related to Information Sources
Question
Follow-Up Probe
Where do you hear or learn about environmental issues in Lucas County?
Internet, news, TV, radio, newspapers, social media, health department, healthcare professionals, library, billboards, other community organizations?
What sources of information are the most credible?
–
Would you like to learn more? Where? How? Internet, news, public meetings, TV, radio, newspapers, social media, health department, healthcare professionals, library, billboards, other community organizations? What information is the most important to receive? What the problem is? How to recognize the problem? Measures to take?
When information is communicated to the public by the news media, they might frame an environmental issue in a way that highlights some aspects of reality to stra- tegically influence the public to support a particular agenda (Bolsen & Shapiro, 2017). Communication experts need to be aware of how the public relies on the framing of news stories about HAB information and how this framing impacts trust and perceptions of risk (Li et al., 2015). Among West Coast res- idents, levels of trust regarding information sources were reported to be highest for state government, followed by professional col- leagues and academic institutions (Ekstrom et al., 2020). Residents in Lucas County, Ohio ( n = 93), who participated in focus groups 1 year after a drinking water advisory, reported a lack of trust toward the actions and decisions of authorities. In August 2014, more than 400,000 residents in Northwest Ohio and southeast Michigan were aected by the issuance of a do-not-drink advisory due to an HAB on the western basin of Lake Erie resulting from elevated microcys- tin toxin levels (McCarty et al., 2016). The distrust of authorities was intensified by the ongoing media coverage and sensationalizing of the event and the potential for subsequent algal blooms. To be part of the solution, resi- dents felt that more information was needed on the primary cause of algal blooms (Ames et al., 2019). The purpose of our qualitative descriptive study was to examine participant answers from these same focus groups to find out: • Where did they get information?
• What information is most important to receive? • What various sources of information did they find most credible? A qualitative descriptive approach seeks to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process, or the perspectives and world- views of the people involved (Bradshaw et al., 2017). Building on knowledge about where the public obtains information on HABs, our study enhances the understanding of a com- plex phenomenon and has implications for eectively communicating risk.
Methods
Design Following approval by the institutional review board of the University of Toledo, we con- ducted a secondary analysis of data on resi- dents’ perceptions of information on HABs, using a qualitative descriptive study design. Setting and Sample Residents in Lucas County, Ohio, partici- pated in nine focus groups, broken into geographic area by ZIP Code. Each focus group consisted of 10–12 English-speaking adults, ages 21–75 years. Exclusion criteria included: 1) individuals or members of their household who worked or had ever worked in media or journalism; environmental sci- ences; or city, state, or local government positions directly working with environ- mental issues and 2) individuals who had participated in a research study in the past 6 months.
27
March 2023 • our5(l o- 5=0ro5me5;(l e(l;/
Powered by FlippingBook