Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 May;65(5):545-551.
doi: 10.1007/s00103-022-03529-8. Epub 2022 Apr 4.

[A new understanding of risk communication in public health emergencies]

[Article in German]
Petra Dickmann  1 , Brigitte Strahwald  2
Affiliations
Review

[A new understanding of risk communication in public health emergencies]

[Article in German]
Petra Dickmann et al. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2022 May.

Abstract
in English, German

Risk communication of public institutions should support the population in the decision-making process in the event of existing risks. It plays a particularly important role in health emergencies such as the SARS-CoV‑2 pandemic. After the SARS outbreak in 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) revised its International Health Regulations (IHR 2005) and called for risk communication to be established as a core area of health policy in all member countries. While the emphasis on health policy was welcomed, the potential for risk communication in this area has not yet been fully exploited. Reasons include discrepancies in the understanding of risk communication and the large number of available methods.This discussion article is intended to help establish a new understanding of risk communication in public health emergencies (emergency risk communication - ERC). It is suggested that, in addition to the risks, the opportunities of the crisis should be included more and that risk communication should be understood more as a continuous process that can be optimized at various points. The "Earlier-Faster-Smoother-Smarter" approach and in particular the earlier detection of health risks ("Earlier") could support the management of public health emergencies in the future.

Die Risikokommunikation öffentlicher Institutionen soll die Bevölkerung im Falle bestehender Risiken bei der Entscheidungsfindung unterstützen. In gesundheitlichen Notlagen wie der Coronavirus(SARS-CoV-2)-Pandemie spielt sie eine besonders wichtige Rolle. Bereits nach dem SARS-Ausbruch im Jahr 2003 hat die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) ihre Internationalen Gesundheitsvorschriften (IHR 2005) überarbeitet und gefordert, Risikokommunikation in allen Mitgliedsländern als einen Kernbereich in der Gesundheitspolitik zu etablieren. Während der gesundheitspolitische Akzent begrüßt wurde, konnten die Möglichkeiten der Risikokommunikation in diesem Bereich bisher nicht voll ausgeschöpft werden. Gründe sind u. a. Unstimmigkeiten im Begriffsverständnis der Risikokommunikation und die Vielzahl zur Verfügung stehender Methoden.Der vorliegende Diskussionsartikel soll dazu beitragen, ein neues Verständnis von Risikokommunikation in Public-Health-Notlagen (Emergency Risk Communication – ERC) zu etablieren. Es wird vorgeschlagen, neben den Risiken die Chancen der Krise stärker einzubeziehen und Risikokommunikation noch mehr als einen kontinuierlichen Prozess zu begreifen, der an verschiedenen Stellen optimierbar ist. Der Earlier-Faster-Smoother-Smarter-Ansatz und hierbei insbesondere die frühere Erkennung von Gesundheitsgefahren (Earlier) könnten das Management von Public-Health-Notlagen zukünftig unterstützen.

Keywords: Crisis communication; Detection; Public health; Response; Risk communication; Surveillance.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Goerlandt F, Li J, Reniers G. The landscape of risk communication research: a scientometric analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 doi: 10.3390/ijerph17093255. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sorensen K, Pelikan JM, Rothlin F, Ganahl K, Slonska Z, Doyle G, et al. Health literacy in Europe: comparative results of the European health literacy survey (HLS-EU) Eur J Public Health. 2015;25(6):1053–1058. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv043. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Garcia-Retamero R, Sobkow A, Petrova D, Garrido D, Traczyk J. Numeracy and risk literacy: what have we learned so far? Span J Psychol. 2019;22:E10. doi: 10.1017/sjp.2019.16. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Karafillakis E, Larson HJ, consortium A The benefit of the doubt or doubts over benefits? A systematic literature review of perceived risks of vaccines in European populations. Vaccine. 2017;35(37):4840–4850. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.07.061. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Berger N, Lindemann AK, Bol GF. Public perception of climate change and implications for risk communication. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2019;62(5):612–619. doi: 10.1007/s00103-019-02930-0. - DOI - PubMed