Using Risk Communication Strategies for Zika Virus Prevention and Control Driven by Community-Based Participatory Research

Juarbe-Rey, Deborah; Pérez, Adriana Obén; Santoni, Roberto Papo Christian P; Ramírez, Melissa Ramírez; Vera, Mildred

doi:10.3390/ijerph15112505

Cited by 18 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five community engagement initiatives were used for Zika within the USA and Puerto Rico (n=3), and one each in Singapore and Uruguay. [44][45][46][47] Four articles were specific to H1N1, with three from Australia and one from Canada. 35-37 48 No articles were found that detailed community engagement for SARS or MERS.…”

Section: Context and Outbreakmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specific make-up of community engagement approaches was often not detailed or did not include diversity and representation, though several reported community engagement structures, including representation from Ebola survivors, 56 women within reproductive age and students, 46 women representatives 39 and youth. 38 54 56 Health system linkages and support Of those that provided details on linkages, very few were explicitly linked to other health system components (with the exception of tracing).…”

Section: Target Groups and Equity Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: a rapid evidence synthesis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCommunity engagement has been considered a fundamental component of past outbreaks, such as Ebola. However, there is concern over the lack of involvement of communities and ‘bottom-up’ approaches used within COVID-19 responses thus far. Identifying how community engagement approaches have been used in past epidemics may support more robust implementation within the COVID-19 response.MethodologyA rapid evidence review was conducted to identify how community engagement is used for infectious disease prevention and control during epidemics. Three databases were searched in addition to extensive snowballing for grey literature. Previous epidemics were limited to Ebola, Zika, SARS, Middle East respiratory syndromeand H1N1 since 2000. No restrictions were applied to study design or language.ResultsFrom 1112 references identified, 32 articles met our inclusion criteria, which detail 37 initiatives. Six main community engagement actors were identified: local leaders, community and faith-based organisations, community groups, health facility committees, individuals and key stakeholders. These worked on different functions: designing and planning, community entry and trust building, social and behaviour change communication, risk communication, surveillance and tracing, and logistics and administration.ConclusionCOVID-19’s global presence and social transmission pathways require social and community responses. This may be particularly important to reach marginalised populations and to support equity-informed responses. Aligning previous community engagement experience with current COVID-19 community-based strategy recommendations highlights how communities can play important and active roles in prevention and control. Countries worldwide are encouraged to assess existing community engagement structures and use community engagement approaches to support contextually specific, acceptable and appropriate COVID-19 prevention and control measures.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Context and Outbreakmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Target Groups and Equity Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: a rapid evidence synthesis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As not all citizens are equally media-savvy, or some simply do not have access to (social) media, community engagement strategies seem to become more important. Such strategies are needed in those areas where people otherwise are unable to make informed health decisions (Juarbe-Rey, Pérez, Santoni, Ramírez, & Vera, 2018). The same goes for children, who cannot be treated as a homogenous group (Sjöberg, 2018).…”

Section: Domain V: Instructions To the Publicmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Crisis Communication. A 30-item Checklist for Assessing Performance during COVID-19 and Other Pandemics

Jong

2020

Journal of Health Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The primary objective of this paper is to propose a conceptual checklist to assess crisis communication efforts during pandemics and in their aftermath. No consolidated checklist exists for assessing the effectiveness of crisis communication at all levels during pandemics. A literature review was conducted, encompassing articles on crisis communication during SARS, swine flu, H1N1, ZIKA, Ebola, and/or COVID-19. Based on the review, a comprehensive checklist was developed to enable researchers and evaluators to assess and review all important aspects of crisis communication during pandemics. The final Assessment tool for Crisis Communication during Pandemics (ACCP) consists of 30 criteria. Further research is suggested to validate the checklist. The global COVID-19 pandemic is a crisis of unprecedented proportions. The crisis arrived in full view, yet it caught everyone off guard: politicians, hospital administrators, pundits, business owners, and the general population (Boin, Ekengren, & Rhinard, 2020). What distinguishes a pandemic from other crises are its characteristics as a "long wave event" (McInnes & Hornmoen, 2018). Where crises such as a major fire or airplane crash are over within a few hours or days, COVID-19 is, at the time of writing, an ongoing crisis that has generated widespread socioeconomic impact. Insight into how governments, citizens, businesses, and media have communicated during the pandemic may help to improve our learning from this crisis and support preparation for future pandemics. Countries on all continents have placed their citizens under various forms of lockdown during COVID-19, implementing measures from the obligation to wear face masks and maintain distance from others, to quarantines and school closures. Similar to earlier pandemics (Abraham, 2011), the initial need is for clear communication on what the public needs to do to reduce transmission as well as treatment advice. Everywhere, crisis communication is used as a public health intervention to inform and advise the public on necessary measures to minimize the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. But as COVID-19 progresses around the world, communication efforts are also needed in terms of citizens' resilience, (national) public leadership, and in communicating with stakeholders whose businesses are closed or suffering from lockdown situations. At the same time, we have observed public leaders around the world who did not agree with the measures proposed by experts. US President Trump and Brazilian president Bolsonaro are examples of public leaders who consistently underplayed the messaging of experts with regard to social distancing and the wearing of face masks,

show abstract

“…Specific make-up of community engagement approaches was often not detailed or did not include diversity and representation though several reported community engagement structures including representation from Ebola survivors [50], women within reproductive age and students [42], women representatives [35], and youth [34, 47, 50].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis

Gilmore

Ndejjo

Tchetchia

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Community engagement has been considered a fundamental component of past outbreaks, such as Ebola. The COVID-19 pandemic and its control efforts require social actions and behaviours, all of which place a large reliance on individual and community compliance, highlighting the need for appropriate community engagement to support such work. However, there is concern over the lack of involvement of communities within COVID-19 thus far. Identifying how community engagement approaches have been used in past epidemics may support more robust implementation of community engagement within COVID-19 response. Methodology A rapid evidence review was conducted to identity how community engagement is used for infectious disease prevention and control during epidemics. Three databases (PubMed, CINHAL and Scopus) were searched in addition to extensive snowballing for grey literature. Previous epidemics were limited to Ebola, Zika, SARS, MERS and H1N1 since 2000. No restrictions were applied to study design or language, though articles must have detailed a minimum of one community engagement for infection prevention and control initiative. All authors participated in searching, screening, and data extraction, with a minimum of two authors at each stage. Results From 1,112 references identified in our search, 32 articles met our inclusion criteria. All but 3 articles were published on or after 2015 which details 37 community engagement initiatives for Ebola (n=28), Zika (n=5) and H1N1 (n=4). Twenty-seven of these initiatives were implemented in low-income countries and 10 from high-income countries. Six broad community engagement actors were identified: local leaders, community and faith-based organisations, community groups, health facility or community health committees, individuals and key stakeholders. These actors worked across six different functions: designing and planning, community entry and trust-building, social and behaviour change communication, risk communication, surveillance and tracing, and logistics and administration. Leaders were the most prevalent actor being engaged, and behaviour change communication, risk communication, and surveillance and tracing were the most common function of community engagement. Implementation considerations community engagement in prevention and control of COVID-19 are reported within. Conclusion COVID-19 global presence and social transmission pathways require social and community responses. This may be particularly important to reach marginalised populations and support equity-informed responses. Previous experience from outbreaks shows that community engagement can take many forms and include different actors and approaches who support various prevention and control activities. Countries worldwide are encouraged to assess existing community engagement structures, and utilise community engagement approaches to support contextually specific, acceptable and appropriate COVID-19 prevention and control measures.

show abstract

Using Risk Communication Strategies for Zika Virus Prevention and Control Driven by Community-Based Participatory Research

Cited by 18 publications

References 31 publications

Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: a rapid evidence synthesis

Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: a rapid evidence synthesis

Evaluating Crisis Communication. A 30-item Checklist for Assessing Performance during COVID-19 and Other Pandemics

Community engagement for COVID-19 prevention and control: A Rapid Evidence Synthesis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About