A comparative analysis of experienced uncertainties in relation to risk communication during COVID19: a four-country study.
Risk assessment
Risk communication and community engagement
Trust
Uncertainty
Journal
Globalization and health
ISSN: 1744-8603
Titre abrégé: Global Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245734
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 06 2022
27 06 2022
Historique:
received:
08
03
2022
accepted:
10
06
2022
entrez:
27
6
2022
pubmed:
28
6
2022
medline:
30
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35761365
doi: 10.1186/s12992-022-00857-x
pii: 10.1186/s12992-022-00857-x
pmc: PMC9235152
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
66Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
R Soc Open Sci. 2019 May 8;6(5):181870
pubmed: 31218028
Can J Public Health. 2006 May-Jun;97 Suppl 2:S26-30
pubmed: 16805158
R Soc Open Sci. 2021 Feb 10;8(2):200589
pubmed: 33972837
Public Health Res Pract. 2020 Jun 30;30(2):
pubmed: 32601655
Health Commun. 2019 Jul;34(8):811-817
pubmed: 29474133
Br J Health Psychol. 2014 Sep;19(3):592-605
pubmed: 23834735
Am J Health Behav. 2021 Mar 1;45(2):334-341
pubmed: 33888193
Stress Health. 2014 Apr;30(2):149-57
pubmed: 23818424
J R Soc Med. 2020 Jun;113(6):211-216
pubmed: 32521198
Anxiety Stress Coping. 2012 May;25(3):329-47
pubmed: 21801075
AIDS Care. 1999 Apr;11(2):201-19
pubmed: 10474623
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
Health Commun. 2022 Apr 19;:1-11
pubmed: 35437068
Res Nurs Health. 1984 Sep;7(3):163-71
pubmed: 6567948
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 Jul;4(7):677-687
pubmed: 32581299
Health Commun. 2022 Jul;37(8):944-951
pubmed: 33499677
J Health Commun. 2018;23(5):435-444
pubmed: 29648962
Sci Context. 2014 Sep;27(3):511-29
pubmed: 25233744
Health Promot Pract. 2008 Oct;9(4 Suppl):54S-59S
pubmed: 18936260
Soc Sci Med. 1988;27(10):1097-103
pubmed: 3059508
Soc Sci Med. 2020 Feb;246:112787
pubmed: 32004803
Cancer Nurs. 2000 Dec;23(6):422-9
pubmed: 11128121
J Behav Med. 2022 Apr 8;:
pubmed: 35394240
Lancet. 2020 Apr 18;395(10232):1255-1256
pubmed: 32247323
PLoS Pathog. 2015 Oct 29;11(10):e1005097
pubmed: 26512988
Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2003 Jul-Aug;24(5):497-522
pubmed: 12775548
BMJ Glob Health. 2021 Nov;6(11):
pubmed: 34794956
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2021 Sep;64(9):1093-1106
pubmed: 34374798
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Apr;82:156-63
pubmed: 23294874
J Health Monit. 2021 Feb 12;5(Suppl 11):2-19
pubmed: 35146281
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Apr 22;23(4):e27832
pubmed: 33769947
Med Anthropol Q. 2021 Jun;35(2):266-284
pubmed: 33174644
BMC Public Health. 2014 May 21;14:484
pubmed: 24884634
Patient Educ Couns. 2022 Jul;105(7):2137-2144
pubmed: 35393231
Lancet Reg Health Eur. 2021 Jun 27;6:100151
pubmed: 34557834
J Adv Nurs. 2001 Apr;34(2):238-45
pubmed: 11430286
Med Decis Making. 2011 Nov-Dec;31(6):828-38
pubmed: 22067431
Clin Ter. 2016;167(1):7-9
pubmed: 26980631
Nat Hum Behav. 2019 May;3(5):426-435
pubmed: 31011164