IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v35y2015i7p1210-1229.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Frederic Bouder
  • Dominic Way
  • Ragnar Löfstedt
  • Darrick Evensen

Abstract

In recent years, European pharmaceutical regulators have increasingly committed to heightening access to raw safety‐related data as part of a wave of transparency initiatives (e.g., providing public Internet‐mediated access to clinical trials data). Yet, the regulators—who are under significant pressure—have not yet benefited from a systematic review of this new policy. In seeking to inject much needed evidence, this article explores the effects of new transparency policies designed to promote meaningful communication of risks and benefits to patients. Results of a cross‐national European survey with respondents from Great Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, France, Germany, and Sweden (N = 5,648) shed light on how patients and the public are likely to react to the regulators’ new transparency policies. The findings demonstrate clear national variations in how European citizens are likely to react and emphasize the need to develop evidence‐based, reasoned transparency policies that integrate benefit‐risk communication. The authors conclude by providing six specific recommendations, informed by the study, that seek to improve the European transparency model both within the medical field and across health, safety, and environmental policy domains.

Suggested Citation

  • Frederic Bouder & Dominic Way & Ragnar Löfstedt & Darrick Evensen, 2015. "Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1210-1229, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:7:p:1210-1229
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12386
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12386
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12386?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher Hood, 2007. "What happens when transparency meets blame-avoidance?," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 191-210, June.
    2. Peter Doshi & Tom Jefferson & Chris Del Mar, 2012. "The Imperative to Share Clinical Study Reports: Recommendations from the Tamiflu Experience," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-6, April.
    3. Ragnar E. Löfstedt & David Vogel, 2001. "The Changing Character of Regulation: A Comparison of Europe and the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 399-416, June.
    4. James Flynn & Ellen Peters & C. K. Mertz & Paul Slovid, 1998. "Risk, Media, and Stigma at Rocky Flats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 715-725, December.
    5. Hans-Georg Eichler & Eric Abadie & Alasdair Breckenridge & Hubert Leufkens & Guido Rasi, 2012. "Open Clinical Trial Data for All? A View from Regulators," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-2, April.
    6. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    7. Roberts, John, 2009. "No one is perfect: The limits of transparency and an ethic for 'intelligent' accountability," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 957-970, November.
    8. Roger Kasperson, 2014. "Four questions for risk communication," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(10), pages 1233-1239, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Åsa Boholm, 2019. "Risk Communication as Government Agency Organizational Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1695-1707, August.
    2. Dominic H. P. Balog-Way & Darrick Evensen & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2020. "Pharmaceutical Benefit–Risk Perception and Age Differences in the USA and Germany," Drug Safety, Springer, vol. 43(11), pages 1141-1156, November.
    3. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    4. Figenbaum, Erik, 2018. "Can battery electric light commercial vehicles work for craftsmen and service enterprises?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 58-72.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Melissa Matlock & Suellen Hopfer & Oladele A. Ogunseitan, 2019. "Communicating Risk for a Climate-Sensitive Disease: A Case Study of Valley Fever in Central California," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    2. José Manuel Palma‐Oliveira & Benjamin D. Trump & Matthew D. Wood & Igor Linkov, 2018. "Community‐Driven Hypothesis Testing: A Solution for the Tragedy of the Anticommons," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 620-634, March.
    3. Cooper, Christine & Lapsley, Irvine, 2021. "Hillsborough: The fight for accountability," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    4. Anna Scolobig & Monika Riegler & Philipp Preuner & JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer & David Ottowitz & Stefan Hoyer & Birgit Jochum, 2017. "Warning System Options for Landslide Risk: A Case Study in Upper Austria," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Thomas Webler & Seth Tuler, 2021. "Four Decades of Public Participation in Risk Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 503-518, March.
    6. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    7. Sarah J. Cowell & Robyn Fairman & Ragnar E. Lofstedt, 2002. "Use of Risk Assessment and Life Cycle Assessment in Decision Making: A Common Policy Research Agenda," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(5), pages 879-894, October.
    8. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    9. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2020. "The Landscape of Risk Communication Research: A Scientometric Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-31, May.
    10. Roberts, John, 2018. "Managing only with transparency: The strategic functions of ignorance," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 53-60.
    11. Tweedie, Dale & Luzia, Karina, 2023. "In place, with power: (Re)conceptualising accountability in national non-government organisations," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    12. Åsa Boholm, 2019. "Risk Communication as Government Agency Organizational Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1695-1707, August.
    13. Guénin-Paracini, Henri & Malsch, Bertrand & Paillé, Anne Marché, 2014. "Fear and risk in the audit process," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 264-288.
    14. Karunakaran, Arvind & Orlikowski, Wanda J. & Scott, Susan V., 2022. "Crowd-based accountability: examining how social media commentary reconfigures organizational accountability," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114401, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    16. Robbins, Geraldine & Lapsley, Irvine, 2015. "From secrecy to transparency: Accounting and the transition from religious charity to publicly-owned hospital," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 19-32.
    17. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    18. Christopher, Joe, 2012. "Tension between the corporate and collegial cultures of Australian public universities: The current status," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 23(7), pages 556-571.
    19. Maria Järlström & Essi Saru & Sinikka Vanhala, 2018. "Sustainable Human Resource Management with Salience of Stakeholders: A Top Management Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 703-724, October.
    20. Saravanamuthu, Kala & Lehman, Cheryl, 2013. "Enhancing stakeholder interaction through environmental risk accounts," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 410-437.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:35:y:2015:i:7:p:1210-1229. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.