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
. 2023 Jan 27:11:1038989.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1038989. eCollection 2023.

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

Brogan Geurts  1 , Heide Weishaar  1 , Almudena Mari Saez  2 , Florin Cristea  1 , Carlos Rocha  2 , Kafayat Aminu  3 , Melisa Mei Jin Tan  4 , Bienvenu Salim Camara  5   6 , Lansana Barry  5 , Paul Thea  5 , Johannes Boucsein  7   8   9 , Thurid Bahr  1 , Sameh Al-Awlaqi  1 , Francisco Pozo-Martin  1 , Evgeniya Boklage  10 , Alexandre Delamou  5   6 , Ayodele Samuel Jegede  3 , Helena Legido-Quigley  4 , Charbel El Bcheraoui  1
Affiliations

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

Brogan Geurts et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: Emergency 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).

Methods: To 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.

Results: We 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.

Conclusion: We 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.

Keywords: community engagement; compliance; emergency risk communication; health policy; international health regulations (IHR); outbreak response; public health emergencies; risk communication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overview of ERC January–December 2020.
Figure 2
Figure 2
(A–D) Maps of main ERC actors involved in strategy development and implementation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. World Health Organisation . International Health Regulations: Ensuring Effective Responses to Public Health Emergencies: Strengthening Risk Communication Capacities of National Systems. Geneva: World Health Organization; (2012). p. 2.
    1. World Health Organization . Checklist and Indicators for Monitoring Progress in the Development of IHR Core Capacities in States Parties. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; (2013).
    1. World Health Organization . Communicating Risk in Public Health emergencies: A WHO Guideline for Emergency Risk Communication (ERC) Policy and Practice. Geneva: World Health Organization; (2017). - PubMed
    1. Dickmann P, Strahwald B. Ein neues Verständnis von Risikokommunikation in Public-Health-Notlagen. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. (2022) 65:545–51. 10.1007/s00103-022-03529-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Briand S. A Voice from the frontline: the role of risk communication in managing the COVID-19 Infodemic and engaging communities in pandemic response. J Commun Healthcare. (2020) 13:6–9. 10.1080/17538068.2020.1758427 - DOI

Publication types