We used data from nationally representative surveys conducted in the United States, Canada and Malta between 2008 and 2009 to answer three questions: Does the public believe that climate change poses human health risks, and if so, are they seen as current or future risks? Whose health does the public think will be harmed? In what specific ways does the public believe climate change will harm human health? When asked directly about the potential impacts of climate change on health and well-being, a majority of people in all three nations said that it poses significant risks; moreover, about one third of Americans, one half of Canadians, and two-thirds of Maltese said that people are already being harmed. About a third or more of people in the United States and Canada saw themselves (United States, 32%; Canada, 67%), their family (United States, 35%; Canada, 46%), and people in their community (United States, 39%; Canada, 76%) as being vulnerable to at least moderate harm from climate change. About one third of Maltese (31%) said they were most concerned about the risk to themselves and their families. Many Canadians said that the elderly (45%) and children (33%) are at heightened risk of harm, while Americans were more likely to see people in developing countries as being at risk than people in their own nation. When prompted, large numbers of Canadians and Maltese said that climate change can cause respiratory problems (78–91%), heat-related problems (75–84%), cancer (61–90%), and infectious diseases (49–62%). Canadians also named sunburn (79%) and injuries from extreme weather events (73%), and Maltese cited allergies (84%). However, climate change appears to lack salience as a health issue in all three countries: relatively few people answered open-ended questions in a manner that indicated clear top-of-mind associations between climate change and human health risks. We recommend mounting public health communication initiatives that increase the salience of the human health consequences associated with climate change.

This research applied muted group theory to investigate female and male athletes’ experiences with not reporting concussions sustained during athletic competition. Using snowball-sampling techniques, a total of 365 women and 247 men completed an online open-ended questionnaire about their reasons for not reporting a concussion. Results indicated that male athletes were more likely to continue to play through and not report a concussion than female athletes. Participants also indicated that they did not report concussions due to (a) perceived lack of resources, (b) perceived lack of severity, (c) conformance to sport cultural norms, which was comprised of two subthemes: adherence to the pain principle and team allegiance. The results suggest that efforts to address concussion management in sport need to focus on the communicative and structural elements that privilege hegemonic masculinity and playing through pain, as they contribute to muting athletes in advocating for their health.

No abstract

There has been growing attention on health and safety issues in sport, most notably football. Consequently, it is important that communication scholars attend to this topic. This research explored print media framing in response to two injury situations involving National Football League quarterbacks—Jay Cutler and Robert Griffin III. An analysis of 177 newspaper articles revealed 11 frames that were used to discuss these injuries. The most prominent frame for Cutler was support while shifting the blame was most prominent for Griffin. The results suggest that sports journalists framing of injuries could potentially be a catalyst to shift football cultural norms towards valuing players who put their health first. The results also reveal that organizations may shoulder most of the blame for players’ injuries, which suggests a short-term setback may be more beneficial in the long-term interest of the organization.

No abstract