Radiation Dose Tool Feedback

Form Approved
OMB No. 0923-0047
Exp. Date 05/31/2016

ATTACHMENT F: Radiation Dose Tool Interviewer’s Guide (Public)

Radiation Dose Tool

(Interview)

1. Introduction

   1. Hello I am [Interviewer’s Name]. You are being asked to participate in an interview being held by UserInsight. The interview will focus on gathering feedback on a tool created by CDC.

   2. Read Participant Information Sheet (Appendix E) and ask the participant if he/she wishes to participate in the interview.

   3. First, introduce yourself.  Then I’ll talk about more about the nature and purpose of this interview.  And then we’ll get right into the discussion part of this session as quickly as possible.

4. As you know, we are planning for the interview to take about 60 minutes.

5. Any questions? OK, let’s start with reviewing a tool first.

2. Radiation Dose Tool

Let’s look at a tool the CDC may use in a radiation emergency. Just to give you some background, the amount of radiation we receive is called radiation dose. Often, people struggle to put radiation dose in perspective. The tool I will ask you to look at provides information on different ways you might be exposed to radiation. Take a moment to review the tool.

Overall Impressions of the Dose Tool

1. What is your general reaction to the way this tool looks?

2. Looking at the tool, would you say it fits in with what they are trying to convey?

• Is there anything confusing, unclear, or hard to understand?

3. How do you feel about the colors? What do you like/dislike about them?

4. Are there things about the tool that you think are particularly ATTENTION-GETTING? APPEALING?

5. Are there things about the tool that BOTHER you in any way?

6. What do you think about the type (font)?

7. Is it easy or difficult to read? [Probe: Font too big? Too small? Too dense?]

8. Was this a new idea or something that you’ve heard before?

9. Does this tool increase your knowledge about radiation exposures?

3. Scenario 1: Low Risk

Imagine that there has been an accident at a nuclear power plant in your state. You seek out information on the accident through TV, your computer, or your smart phone. You see that emergency officials are saying although radiation detection instruments are reporting higher levels of radiation in the area than normal, the increase in radiation levels is not enough to expect any harmful effects to occur.

In this scenario, radiation levels were elevated, but did not present a health concern. Let’s imagine that scientists found that people in the area would receive a dose of approximately 1mSv (milliSieverts) or 0.1 rem from this emergency.

Scenario 1: Low Risk

1. What is the main idea that this message [tool] is trying to get across, in your own words?

2. How would you sum up in just a few words your first impression of this message [tool]? Do you like it? Not like it? What makes you say that?

3. Is this message [tool] believable or not? Why or why not?

4. How easy are these guidelines [information] for you to follow and understand?

5. What, if anything, makes it difficult to follow? How might this be presented in an easier way?

6. How could this message [tool] be improved?

7. Does this message [tool] make you want to do anything?

• Does this motivate you to take action?

• Would this make you interested in finding out about [INSERT health topic or behavior (radiation)] in your community?

8. Is there anything you want to know that this item does not tell you?

4. Scenario 2: High Risk

In this scenario, imagine that a terrorist has detonated a nuclear bomb about 5 miles away from you. You seek out information on the attack through TV, your computer, or your smart phone. You see that emergency officials are using the radiation risk scale to tell people in a 20-mile radius of ground zero (which includes you) that by getting inside a stable building and staying there for 24 hours that you can reduce your risk of experiencing health effects.

In this scenario, radiation levels were high, and were dangerous. Officials recommended that people in the area take protective actions. Let’s imagine that scientists found that you would receive a dose of approximately 3000 mSv or 300 rem from this emergency if you took the protective actions that were recommended.

REPEAT QUESTIONS IN SCENARIO 1 (Q1-Q8)

9. Which actions, if any, sound doable to you? Why?

10. Would you consider doing this behavior?

11. What makes it hard to do this?

12. What do you think of this idea?

13. How appealing is it to you as a way to control [the effects of a radiation emergency]?

V. Sources

Next I would like to ask you some questions about information sources.

1. Who do you think would be a good spokesperson to use to convince you and your friends to take steps to protect your health during a radiation emergency?

2. How do you prefer to see health information [about radiation] presented?

• In what form (probe: posters, brochures, fliers)?

3. What could CDC do to make you feel better about the health risks in your community [during a radiation emergency]?

6. Wrap-Up

1. Those are all of my questions for you.

2. Thank you.

3. I know thinking about this subject may have raised some questions. I’d like to provide you with some information from the Centers from Disease Control and Prevention. You can visit the Radiation Emergencies website at http://emergency.cdc.gov/radiation. If you have a specific question, you can email the CDC at cdcinfo@cdc.gov or call 1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636).

Public reporting burden of this collection of information is estimated to average 60 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to CDC/ATSDR Information Collection Review Office, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS D-74, Atlanta, Georgia 30333; ATTN: PRA (0923-0047).