Scientific and non-scientific information in the uptake of health information: The case of Ebola

Abstract

The Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa (2013–2016) claimed over 10 000 lives in less than 18 months. Low levels of familiarity with the disease, ease of transmission, scale of infection, gruesomeness of symptoms, lack of cure and high fatality rate created a global panic. From the perspective of the social psychology of communication and content analysis, this study examines media coverage of the crisis in Africa with a view to unpacking the scientific and non-scientific information that may have framed public understanding of the disease. Findings show that accepting scientific advice was not unproblematic, because of the similarity of early symptoms with known diseases such as Lassa, dengue and malaria fevers. Cultural and religious actors and beliefs posed a paradox for believers as the public assimilated disease prevention information into existing norms and practices. Rumours and conspiracy theories about Western governments and pharmaceuticals also contributed to the rejection of the scientific explanation of its origin. Fear of the devastating effects of the disease and the lack of a cure led to the stigmatisation of the infected and treatment centres and ultimately to public revolts. Findings show the importance of non-scientific information and actors in matters of health and illness in Africa.

How Misinformation Spreads

“…A recent example claims that the symptoms associated with Covid-19 are actually caused by 5G technologies (rather than the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus) and that powerful people are conspiring to hide this "fact" (Andrews 2020;Sorkin 2020). Research suggests that these unfounded theories can play a role in shaping health behaviors-for example, in decisions of whether or not to vaccinate (Jolley and Douglas 2014;Falade and Coultas 2017).…”

Leveraging media informatics for the surveillance and understanding of disease outbreaks

“…7 The news media tell the public what to think about by directing attention to problems and solutions and prioritising issues of importance. [8][9][10] Thus, they have become tools for understanding health problems in different contexts 11,12 and for understanding the psychosocial factors that propel epidemics 13 . Newspapers flagged opposition by religious authorities to vaccination in Nigeria in 2001, well ahead of the vaccine revolt of 2003-2004.…”

“…Previously unknown Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) spread from Guangdong Province in China to 37 countries including Canada, Singapore and Taiwan, with 774 reported deaths. 51 The Ebola virus 13 caused global panic when it resulted in the death of thousands in West Africa, where it was previously unknown. It is these shared images of fatalities with which the public perceive new viruses with the potential to globalise in new areas.…”

Turning the gaze: challenges of involving biomedical researchers in community engagement with research in Patan, Nepal

“…I use the term ‘meaningful engagement’ in a considered way. For me, engagement is meaningful when people critically examine their own knowledge and express this without fear, to others who are receptive and responsive to this expression, bearing in mind that there will always be a muddying of the waters in the process of assimilation and interpretation (Falade & Coultas, 2017 ; Nichter, 2008 ). This concept of meaningful engagement is principally informed by scholars within international development, and specifically participatory development practice.…”