Increasing Trust in Science on World Health Day: The Mental Models Approach to Risk Communication
On 7 April 2026, World Health Day, the WHO calls for collective action under the theme “Together for health: stand with science.” The message is unambiguous: choosing evidence, trusting facts, and supporting science-led health systems are essential to protect lives and secure a healthier future, for people, animals, and the planet. This call reflects a timely and pressing reality: trust in science, particularly in the context of healthcare, has come under increasing strain. Surveys from Harvard Medicine and Pew Research Center suggest that public trust in scientists and medical institutions has declined significantly over the past decade, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, misinformation, especially related to health, has proliferated rapidly, reshaping how people access and evaluate scientific knowledge. Declining trust in science is linked to factors such as misinformation, political weaponisation, and the undervaluation of science by government actors (Springer, 2026).
Against this backdrop, rebuilding trust in science is not simply a matter of communicating more information. It requires understanding what people believe, how their beliefs are formed, and what they need to know to make informed decisions, building on the knowledge they have already acquired through both formal and informal education. The mental models approach to risk communication responds to these considerations by providing a strategy for identifying individuals’ most important informational needs, forming the basis of our approach to communicate about GreenNanoBone’s development and clinical application in meaningful and relevant ways.
Risk Communication: Shifting away from blame towards responsibility
Scientific findings inform many personal decisions, such as dietary or medical choices, and public decisions, such as voting or policy support. As a result, scientific information must, at least in part, be understood by the public, even by individuals who are not particularly interested in science. Risk communication is the process of translating scientific information into relevant, understandable insights that support decision-making. Central to this process is the exchange of information about risks between different stakeholders, including the public, through dialogue. In doing so, it shifts the focus away from blaming the public for a lack of scientific knowledge toward the responsibility of scientists to communicate in ways that are relevant, accessible and understandable, tailoring both the delivery and content of communication to the needs of specific audiences. Ultimately, its goal is not to prescribe a single course of action, but to ensure that people understand the relevant facts on which they base their decisions, even if they weigh risks and outcomes differently.
The mental models approach to risk communication provides a structured way to make scientific knowledge meaningful for decision-making within complex, real-life situations. It acknowledges that individuals’ understandings of a scientific development are shaped by their own knowledge, experiences, beliefs and concerns, which may differ considerably from scientific understandings. This systematic approach begins with the identification of the essential information necessary for decision-making. Subsequently, a thorough exploration of how target groups understand the same topic is conducted, typically through interviews. By comparing these two perspectives, communicators can develop communication that translates complex evidence into clear, relatable messages about risks, benefits, and trade-offs. In doing so, this approach not only improves understanding but also fosters trust, as it aligns communication with people’s existing knowledge, concerns, and decision-making needs.
Towards the clinical introduction of GreenNanoBone: Closing the gap between science and society
Within our project, the mental models approach is applied with the aim of promoting social acceptability necessary for GreenNanoBone to be responsibly introduced into clinical practice. Building on an expert model that captures the current scientific understanding of GreenNanoBone, an interview study with both MRONJ patients and members of the public will explore their knowledge, beliefs and concerns in relation to GreenNanoBone. These interviews aim to capture participants’ understanding of the biomaterial in their own terms, without redirecting or shaping their existing knowledge and beliefs. As GreenNanoBone is still in development and familiarity with the innovation cannot be expected, the interviews are designed to gradually introduce different aspects of the innovation, allowing for exploration of how participants understand and relate to new scientific information.
The resulting data will inform a patient/public mental model, capturing the key concepts that shape their understanding of GreenNanoBone. Comparing the expert and patient/public model allows us to identify potential differences in understanding, including knowledge gaps, misconceptions, unanticipated concerns, and differences in how risks and benefits are weighed. These insights will inform the development of communication materials that aim to support patients and the public in informed decision-making, and in doing so, working toward greater public trust in science.