SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Jones S, Lennon K. One in a million: the facts about water fluoridation. 2nd ed. Manchester, UK: The British Fluoridation Society; 2004.
  • 2
    Armfield JM. When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4:25.
  • 3
    Crozier S. States vote on fluoridation issues: varied outcomes summon insights on past successes. ADA News Today. 2008 Nov 17;1.
  • 4
    Centers for Disease Control. Ten great public health achievements – United States, 1900-1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48:241-2.
  • 5
    Frazier PJ. Fluoridation: a review of social research. J Public Health Dent. 1980;40(3):214-33.
  • 6
    Mummery WK, Duncan M, Kift R. Socio-economic differences in public opinion regarding water fluoridation in Queensland. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2007;31(4):336-9.
  • 7
    Chikte UM. Promoting oral health in South Africa: public perceptions of water fluoridation. J Dent Assoc S Afr. 1997;52(11):665-71.
  • 8
    Chikte UM, Brand AA. Attitudes to water fluoridation in South Africa 1998. Part III. An analysis of pro- and anti-fluoridation attitudes in South Africa. SADJ. 2000;55(2):70-6.
  • 9
    Chikte UM, Brand AA, Louw AJ, Sarvan I. Attitudes to water fluoridation in South Africa 1998. Part II. Influence of educational and occupational levels. SADJ. 2000;55(1):23-8.
  • 10
    Campbell D, Holbrook L, Watson P. Fluoridation – what the public know and what they want. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2001;25(4):346-8.
  • 11
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) Dental Statistics and Research Unit. Public perceptions of dentistry: stimulus or barrier to better oral health. AIHW cat. no. DEN96. Adelaide, Australia: AIHW Dental Statistics and Research Unit; 2002.
  • 12
    Queensland Government Office of Economic and Statistical Research. Queensland Household Survey: summary report prepared for Department of Health; 2004.
  • 13
    Wåhlberg AEA. The theoretical features of some current approaches to risk perception. J Risk Res. 2001;4:237-50.
  • 14
    Fischoff B, Bostrom A, Quadrel MJ. Risk perception and communication. Annu Rev Public Health. 1993;14:183-203.
  • 15
    Azjen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1980.
  • 16
    Becker MH. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health Educ Monogr. 1974;2:324-508.
  • 17
    Loewenstein GF, Weber EU, Hsee CK, Welch N. Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. 2001;127:267-86.
  • 18
    Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG. Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Anal. 2004;24:311-22.
  • 19
    Fischhoff B, Slovic P, Lichtenstein S, Read S, Combs B. How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 1978;9:127-52.
  • 20
    Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280-5.
  • 21
    Sandman PM. Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In: CovelloVT, McCallumDB, PavlovaMT, editors. Effective risk communication: the role and responsibility of government and nongovernment organizations. New York: Plenum; 1989. p. 45-52.
  • 22
    Burgess DC, Burgess MA, Leask J. The MMR vaccination and autism controversy in United Kingdom 1998-2005: inevitable community outrage or a failure of risk communication? Vaccine. 2006;24(18):3921-8.
  • 23
    Johnson BB. Communicating air quality information: experimental evaluation of alternative formats. Risk Anal. 2003;23(1):91-103.
  • 24
    Burke D. GM food and crops: what went wrong in the UK? Many of the public's concerns have little to do with science. EMBO Rep. 2004;5(5):432-6.
  • 25
    Siegrist M, Keller C, Kiers HA. Lay people's perception of food hazards: comparing aggregated data and individual data. Appetite. 2006;47(3):324-32.
  • 26
    Terpstra T, Gutteling JM, Geldof GD, Kappe LJ. The perception of flood risk and water nuisance. Water Sci Technol. 2006;54(6-7):431-9.
  • 27
    Townsend E, Clarke DD, Travis B. Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Anal. 2004;24(5):1369-84.
  • 28
    Kirk SF, Greenwood D, Cade JE, Pearman AD. Public perception of a range of potential food risks in the United Kingdom. Appetite. 2002;38(3):189-97.
  • 29
    Holtgrave DR, Weber EU. Dimensions of risk perception for financial and health risks. Risk Anal. 1993;13(5):553-8.
  • 30
    Park B, Smith K, Malvitz D, Furman L. Hazard vs outrage: public perception of fluoridation risks. J Public Health Dent. 1990;50:285-7.
  • 31
    Covello V, Sandman PM. Risk communication: evolution and revolution. In: WolbarstA, editor. Solutions to an environment in peril. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press; 2001. p. 164-78.
  • 32
    Australian Bureau of Statistics. 3201.0 – Population by Age and Sex, Australian States and Territories, Jun 2002 to Jun 2007; 2008.
  • 33
    SPSS. Statistical Package for Social Sciences: Windows Version. 16.0 ed. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.; 2007.
  • 34
    Sandman PM. Risk communication: facing public outrage. Manage Commun Q. 1988;2:235-8.
  • 35
    Sandman PM. The relationship between hazard and outrage. 1998 [cited 2008 Nov 25]. Available from: http://www.psandman.com/handouts/sand44.pdf.