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

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.

A comparative analysis of experienced uncertainties in relation to risk communication during COVID19: a four-country study

Background

During outbreaks, uncertainties experienced by affected communities can influence their compliance to government guidance on public health. Communicators and authorities are, hence, encouraged to acknowledge and address such uncertainties. However, in the midst of public health crises, it can become difficult to define and identify uncertainties that are most relevant to address. We analyzed data on COVID-19-related uncertainties from four socio-economic contexts to explore how uncertainties can influence people’s perception of, and response to Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) strategies.

Results

This qualitative study, which adopts an interpretative approach, is based on data from a documentary review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussions (FGD) with members of the general public and people with barriers to information from Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore. Transcripts from the KII and FGD were coded and analyzed thematically. We interviewed a total of 155 KIs and conducted 73 FGD. Our analysis uncovered a divergence between uncertainties deemed relevant by stakeholders involved in policy making and uncertainties that people reportedly had to navigate in their everyday lives and which they considered relevant during the pandemic. We identified four types of uncertainties that seemed to have influenced people’s assessment of the disease risk and their trust in the pandemic control strategies including RCCE efforts: epidemiological uncertainties (related to the nature and severity of the virus), information uncertainties (related to access to reliable information), social uncertainties (related to social behavior in times of heightened risk), and economic uncertainties (related to financial insecurities).

Conclusion

We suggest that in future outbreaks, communicators and policy makers could improve the way in which affected communities assess their risk, and increase the trust of these communities in response efforts by addressing non-epidemiological uncertainties in RCCE strategies.

Risk communication during COVID-19: a comparative analysis of four countries

Background

Risk communication (RC) is fundamental to ensuring public engagement in public health emergencies. Existing studies describe the mechanisms that integrate RC into emergency responses, but knowledge about which governing structures and policies are needed to ensure effective RC in public health emergencies is lacking. We compare RC across four epidemiological, socio-political, and geo-economic settings and identify key structural factors that can lead to effective RC in public health emergencies.

Methods

A multisite international study was implemented using qualitative research methods in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore. We mapped and assessed RC governing structures, drawing on a document review and semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of RC strategies at national and sub-national levels.

Results

A comparative analysis of the content, process, actors, and context of the distinct RC structures in the four countries as well as related strengths and weaknesses are presented. Early integration of RC into preparedness and response plans alongside the use of previous experiences and structures are key to effective implementation of RC during public health emergencies. A lack of coordination increases the risk of parallel structures, missed opportunities, duplication of resources, and public confusion due to a cacophony of messages. Building on previous experiences of outbreaks and on existing structures and relationships can help governments to more quickly mobilise effective RC strategies during pandemics.

Conclusions

RC is key to effective pandemic responses and can help to reduce infection and transmission. Yet, considerable potential exists for countries to improve RC in public health emergencies. Learning from mistakes and successes during COVID-19 can help improve RC strategies and governing structures and prepare for future pandemics.

Key messages

Strengthening RC preparedness and response enables governments to more effectively implement the International Health Regulations. COVID-19 provides ample learning opportunities to improve communication in public health emergencies.