Ein neues Verständnis von Risikokommunikation in Public-Health-Notlagen

Dickmann, Petra; Strahwald, Brigitte

doi:10.1007/s00103-022-03529-8

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings suggest that modern ERC strategies need to embrace unregulated, informal, community-level, and multi-channel communication as opportunities which should be seized rather than as threats that have to be contained. Bilateral communication needs to become an integral part of ERC in order to maximize its impact (3,4).…”

Section: Erc Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aim of emergency risk communication (ERC) is to allow vulnerable individuals to make decisions to reduce the risks they are exposed to and protect themselves against infection (3). Due to the global scale, its dynamic nature, and the prevalence of social media, the COVID-19 pandemic has posed both new challenges and opportunities for ERC (4,5). Studies which compare nonpharmaceutical interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic show that active communication with the public and coordinated public information campaigns significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19 (6,7).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A report on the functioning of the International Health Regulations during the COVID-19 response postulates that WHO and country capacities and approaches to information management and risk communication urgently need to be improved (13). While learning from past experiences of ERC is acknowledged as crucial, little is known about how ERC was actually designed and implemented in the context and early stages of COVID-19 (4). Existing studies focus on describing risk communication strategies and understanding the use of specific information sources, channels, target audiences, and messages (14,15).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts

Geurts

Weishaar²,

Mari-Sáez³

et al. 2023

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEmergency risk communication (ERC) is key to achieving compliance with public health measures during pandemics. Yet, the factors that facilitated ERC during COVID-19 have not been analyzed. We compare ERC in the early stages of the pandemic across four socio-economic settings to identify how risk communication can be improved in public health emergencies (PHE).MethodsTo map and assess the content, process, actors, and context of ERC in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore, we performed a qualitative document review, and thematically analyzed semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in ERC at national and sub-national levels. We applied Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle as a framework to structure the results.ResultsWe identified distinct ERC strategies in each of the four countries. Various actors, including governmental leads, experts, and organizations with close contact to the public, collaborated closely to implement ERC strategies. Early integration of ERC into preparedness and response plans, lessons from previous experiences, existing structures and networks, and clear leadership were identified as crucial for ensuring message clarity, consistency, relevance, and an efficient use of resources. Areas of improvement primarily included two-way communication, community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Countries with recurrent experiences of pandemics appeared to be more prepared and equipped to implement ERC strategies.ConclusionWe found that considerable potential exists for countries to improve communication during public health emergencies, particularly in the areas of bilateral communication and community engagement as well as monitoring and evaluation. Building adaptive structures and maintaining long-term relationships with at-risk communities reportedly facilitated suitable communication. The findings suggest considerable potential and transferable learning opportunities exist between countries in the global north and countries in the global south with experience of managing outbreaks.

show abstract

Section: Erc Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts

Geurts

Weishaar²,

Mari-Sáez³

et al. 2023

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Эти проблемы частично связаны с отсутствием фактических данных о том, кáк наилучшим образом взаимодействовать между реагирующими учреждениями и общественностью. Информирование о рисках следует понимать как непрерывный процесс, который может быть оптимизирован на различных этапах оказания медицинской помощи пострадавшим в ЧС [1,2].…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Emergency Risk Communication in Providing of Medical Care to Victims of Emergency Situations

Matuzov,

Masyagutova

2024

Disaster Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary. The purpose of the study is to study domestic and foreign experience in implementing risk communications in providing of medical care to victims of emergency situations (ES). Materials and methods of research. Research materials – domestic and foreign publications on the problem of using risk communications in emergency situations. Research methods – analytical method and generalization method. Research results and their analysis. During the period of liquidation of the consequences of emergencies, especially those that are characterized by scale and wide public resonance, issues of information support of the population and medical personnel become of utmost importance. Emergency risk communication (ERC) is a key public health challenge that Member States of the World Health Organization (WHO) must address. Main principles of risk communication: – people have the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives; – different goals, audiences and communication channels require different risk communication strategies; – it is necessary to listen to the audience and its needs; – honesty and openness are the foundation for building trusting relationships with the population; – inconsistency between various government agencies when providing information to the population leads to a decrease in trust in the authorities on the part of the population; – interaction with the media and the public should be carried out on a planned and ongoing basis; – specialists should speak to the public simply, clearly and, if possible, avoiding professional terms that are incomprehensible to a wide audience.

show abstract

“…This modern risk communication approach aims to be more adaptable to the respective populations and their needs, taking into account its responsibility for successful public health management [ 24 ]. The major shift in WHO’s redesign was the framing of risk communication [ 7 , 25 ]. While previous recommendations relied on basic communication techniques, such as speaking loudly and clearly with unambiguous messages through established channels [ 26 ], the modern approach relies on a jointly owned narrative that frames risk communication in a way that is relevant to and meaningful for communities [ 27 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public health risk communication through the lens of a quarantined community: Insights from a coronavirus hotspot in Germany

Licht,

Wetzker,

Scholz

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Quarantine is one of the most effective interventions to contain an infectious disease outbreak, yet it is one of the most disruptive. We investigated the quarantine of an entire village to better understand risk communication requirements for groups. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey study on a single cohort of adult residents in Neustadt am Rennsteig, Germany, six weeks after the removal of a 14-day mandatory community quarantine. The survey response rate was 33% (289/883 residents). Findings Survey participants reported a lack of information on the quarantine implementation process. What authorities communicated was not necessarily what residents desired to know. While inhabitants used social media and telephones to communicate with each other, the official information sources were regional radio, television, newspapers and official websites. Public health authorities did not employ social media communication to engage with their communities. Despite a lack of information, the majority of respondents stated that they had complied with the quarantine and they expressed little sympathy for those who violated the quarantine. After lifting the quarantine, many respondents continued to avoid places where they suspected a significant risk of infection, such as family and friends’ homes, doctor’s offices and grocery stores. Interpretation The survey participants utilised existing social networks to disseminate vital information and stabilise its group identity and behaviour (quarantine compliance). The authorities communicated sparsely in a unidirectional, top-down manner, without engaging the community. Despite the lack of official information, the social coherency of the group contributed to considerate and compliant conduct, but participants expressed dissatisfaction with official leadership and asked for more attention. Conclusion Public health risk communication must engage with communities more effectively. This necessitates a deeper comprehension of groups, their modes of communication and their social needs.

show abstract

Ein neues Verständnis von Risikokommunikation in Public-Health-Notlagen

Cited by 5 publications

References 33 publications

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts

Emergency Risk Communication in Providing of Medical Care to Victims of Emergency Situations

Public health risk communication through the lens of a quarantined community: Insights from a coronavirus hotspot in Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About