Health communication is an epidemiological determinant: Public health implications for COVID-19 and future crises management

The challenges of epidemiologic translation: communicating with physicians, policymakers, and the public

Translational epidemiology refers to the practical application of population-health research findings to efforts addressing health disparities and other public health issues. A principal focus of epidemiologic translation is on the communication of results to constituencies who can best make use of this information to effect positive health-related change. Indeed, it is contended that findings from epidemiologic research are of greatest use only if adequately communicated to health professionals, legislators and policymakers, and the public. This paper details the challenges faced by efforts to communicate findings to the these constituencies, especially three types of miscommunication that can derail efforts at translation. These include perceived misinformation, perceived disinformation, and perceived censorship. Epidemiologists are ethically obliged to avoid these types of miscommunication, and, accordingly, are advised to place greater emphasis on messaging and media outreach to physicians, government officials, medical educators, and the general public.

There is a need for more precise models to assess the determinants of health crises like COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on global mortality. While the causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and the anomalous increase in deaths is established, more precise and complex models are needed to determine the exact weight of epidemiological factors involved. Indeed, COVID-19 behavior is influenced by a wide range of variables, including demographic characteristics, population habits and behavior, healthcare performance, and environmental and seasonal risk factors. The bidirectional causality between impacted and impacting aspects, as well as confounding variables, complicates efforts to draw clear, generalizable conclusions regarding the effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio of non-pharmaceutical health countermeasures. Thus, it is imperative that the scientific community and health authorities worldwide develop comprehensive models not only for the current pandemic but also for future health crises. These models should be implemented locally to account for micro-differences in epidemiological characteristics that may have relevant effects. It is important to note that the lack of a universal model does not imply that local decisions have been unjustified, and the request to decrease scientific uncertainty does not mean denying the evidence of the effectiveness of the countermeasures adopted. Therefore, this paper must not be exploited to denigrate either the scientific community or the health authorities.

World Health Organization is losing online credibility towards health-sensitive topics: Infodemiological analysis of Facebook users' reactions

Background: The scientific infodemic constitutes one of the greatest threats to public health and safety today. The credibility of the main dissemination agencies is an essential tool for adhering to measures to preserve public health. Methods: The study is a longitudinal retrospective conducted on a web platform to investigate netizens' infodemic attitude towards World Health Organization. Reactions such as "like," "love," "affection," "surprise," "sadness," "anger," and "derision" were collected under World Health Organization (WHO) Facebook posts on climate change (from 2019 to 2022) and vaccines (from 2021 to 2022). Descriptive statistics, linear regression, and correlation methods were implemented to identify possible trends and relationships with the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Results: These findings showed a worrying increase in derision reactions about climate change-related posts (up to 22% in November 2022, with a quadratically growing trend over time since December 2020). Furthermore, infodemic reactions such as anger and especially derision made up the majority of emotional reactions to vaccine-related posts since 2021 and up to 44% of total reactions in November 2022 (median since July 2021=9%, IQR: 4%-14%). Finally, there is evidence of a correlation between the start of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and public distrust towards the WHO, even for issues unrelated to vaccines such as climate change. Conclusion: Based on what is known in the literature, these preliminary findings signal that the WHO is losing online public credibility towards extremely relevant issues for global health. Infodemiological interventions in accordance with the recent literature are urgently required.