When pictures waste a thousand words: analysis of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic on television news

An exploration of the influencing factors for effective public health messaging during disasters: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Public health messaging during disasters help to provide knowledge and guidance for preventative behaviours and risk reduction. The aim of this review is to explore how public health messages are currently being provided during disasters and identify what influencing factors contribute to the effectiveness of these messages.

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using guidance from Joanna Briggs Methodology for Scoping Reviews. A narrative synthesis was utilised due to the heterogeneity of findings. The review included seventeen sources, addressing a variety of disasters around the globe over the past two decades.

RESULTS

Three key influencing factors were identified and are illustrated in a concept model called the Audience, Information, Messenger and Mode (AIMM) Public Health Messaging Scale. This conceptual model depicts considerations such as the quantity, quality, and framing of information, the human and technological sources used for delivery and the audience needs and capabilities required for optimal message impact and effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Public health messages do influence prevention behaviours during disasters, but they must be carefully tailored and delivered to ensure adequate reach, comprehension, and compliance.

A Review and Analysis of the Literature on Public Health Emergency Communication Practices

A systematic review using structured and transparent methods was carried out to collect and review the qualitative literature investigating trust in crisis communication during emerging infectious diseases. Qualitative synthesis was conducted using a descriptive thematic analysis approach. The GRADE-CERQual assessment was used to determine the confidence in each thematic finding to support decisions when implementing review findings. Overall, 13 studies were included in the review, resulting in 10 thematic categories that describe characteristics associated with crisis communication information and sources of crisis communication that can enhance or maintain public trust. The results of this review suggest the public judges the trustworthiness of crisis communication based on the information characteristics, including consistency, repetition, and timeliness, and especially transparency and uncertainty. Public health is a trusted source of crisis communication when the presenting spokesperson is a health official, the information is not perceived as politicized, and is timely. Community leaders, such as family doctors, are also trusted sources of crisis communication, whereas media and government officials face distrust because of perceived sensationalized information, and defensiveness and unreliable information respectively. Qualitative data in this area is limited, especially involving the public and priority populations, and should be the focus of future research.

Health authorities' health risk communication with the public during pandemics: a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

Responses from the H1N1 swine flu pandemic and the recent COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic provide an opportunity for insight into the role of health authorities' ways of communicating health risk information to the public. We aimed to synthesise the existing evidence regarding different modes of communication used by health authorities in health risk communication with the public during a pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a rapid scoping review. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for publications in English from January 2009 through October 2020, covering both the full H1N1 pandemic and the response phase during the COVID-19 pandemic. The search resulted in 1440 records, of which 48 studies met our eligibility criteria.

RESULTS

The present review identified studies across a broad interdisciplinary field of health risk communication. The majority focused on the H1N1 pandemic and the COVID-19 pandemic. A content analysis of the studies identified three categories for modes of communication: i) communication channels, ii) source credibility and iii) how the message is communicated. The identified studies on social media focused mainly on content and engagement, while studies on the effect of the use of social media and self-protective behaviour were lacking. Studies on the modes of communication that take the diversity of receivers in the field into account are lacking. A limited number of studies of health authorities' use of graphic and audio-visual means were identified, yet these did not consider/evaluate creative communication choices.

CONCLUSION

Experimental studies that investigate the effect of health authorities' videos and messages on social media platforms and self-protective behaviour are needed. More studies are needed across the fields of health risk communication and media studies, including visual communication, web design, video and digital marketing, at a time when online digital communication is central to reaching the public.

Social justice in pandemic immunization policy: We're all in this together

Policy decisions regarding immunization during a pandemic are informed by the ethical understandings of policy makers. With the possibility that a vaccine might soon be available to mitigate the deadly COVID-19 pandemic, policy makers can consider learnings from past pandemic immunization campaigns. This critical analysis of three policy decisions made in Alberta, Canada, during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic demonstrates the predominance of distributive justice principles and the problems that this created for vulnerable groups. Vulnerable groups identified in Alberta include rural and First Nations populations. We propose a social justice approach as a viable alternative to inform pandemic immunization policy and invite debate.

Let’s do better: public representations of COVID-19 science

COVID science is being both done and circulated at a furious pace. While it is inspiring to see the research community responding so vigorously to the pandemic crisis, all this activity has also created a churning sea of bad data, conflicting results, and exaggerated headlines. With representations of science becoming increasingly polarized, twisted, and hyped, there is growing concern that the relevant science is being represented to the public in a manner that may cause confusion, inappropriate expectations, and the erosion of public trust. Here we explore some of the key issues associated with the representations of science in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these issues are not new. But the COVID-19 pandemic has placed a spotlight on the biomedical research process and amplified the adverse ramifications of poor public communication. We need to do better. As such, we conclude with 10 recommendations aimed at key actors involved in the communication of COVID-19 science, including government, funders, universities, publishers, media, and the research communities.