The COVID-19 pandemic is a case study for communication and business continuity professionals as they review and prepare their crisis or emergency management plans, particularly in relation to the communication component. Many risk communicators in national health agencies across the globe never anticipated the significant level of disinformation launched against vaccination and other public health measures to stem the spread of the deadly novel coronavirus.
Nearly three quarters of the United States public believe that much disinformation exists about the COVID-19 vaccination and this will prolong the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the latest Disinformation in Society Report published by the Institute for Public Relations, IPR . It’s definition of disinformation is “the deliberate spread of misleading or biased information.” The IPR study identifies social media platform, Facebook (72 %) among the top three sources of disinformation. Socially media platforms have magnified the effects of the disinformation campaigns, but they are neutral channels and can be used effectively to counter negative campaigns. A comparative study by Northern Caribbean University found that social media play a significant role in influencing the decisions of four in 10 Jamaicans whether to take or refuse COVID-19 vaccinations.
Key takeaway: the crisis communication plan must include a social media monitoring element.
In countering disinformation, and in pursuant of effective communication, the messengers of critical information must be trusted sources. The most trusted information sources for Americans are their families, friends and “people like me”, the IPR study found. This points to the best practice of training and using peer counsellors to communicate the intended messages about a crisis at hand.
Build trust
The matter of trust is critical for effective communication in a crisis situation, more so one that involves a public health emergency.
The World Health Organisation’s best practices for communicating with the public during an outbreak regards building trust as the foundation for effective outbreak communication, with the most critical objective being to “build, maintain, or restore public trust in those responsible for managing the outbreak and issuing information about it.” Health authorities must resist the ever-present temptation to downplay the severity and extent of a health outbreak for fear of fomenting hysteria in population or to protect the reputation of officials. People must have confidence in the veracity of public pronouncements on the outbreak.
In building trust, the WHO advises the early announcement of an outbreak: “Since human behaviours nearly always play a role in outbreak spread, early announcement contributes to early containment in a situation where every day counts.” The first communication about an outbreak is often the most important. This is where the first defence against disinformation or misinformation starts. Critical information such as the date/time of the outbreak, the number of persons affected initially, and the cause of the health emergency, if known, should not be left to speculation. Of critical importance is not to leave an information vacuum; health communicators must continuously update the information available to the public.
Key takeaway: Health communicators must frame the first set of information released to the public and continuously publish updates. Otherwise, detractors, especially on social media, will get their message out first, thereby beginning the spiral of disinformation.
WHO notes that “in general, greater transparency results in higher trust”. Transparency means that the communication to the public is “candid, easily understood, complete and accurate.” Health risk communicators should avoid an over reliance on professional terminology and utlise communication tools (charts etc) that assist the public in understanding the information shared. But transparency also has limits, as some information, such as confidential patient data, should not be made public for ethical reasons. “The key is to balance such concerns against the public’s right, need and desire for reliable information,” WHO advises.
Health communicators must be sensitive to the concerns of the various publics who are at risks – patients and their families and neighbours, the media, researchers, community leaders, trade partners among other. As members of the public, they have legitimate concerns and are entitled to information that affects their health. Their concerns may not be clearly articulated or may be based on a false premise or may not be directly connected to the health emergency. Nevertheless, it is the job of the communicator to respectfully address the issue raised.
Key takeaway: The public has a right to know. Their concerns may not be clearly articulated or may be based on a false premise. Nevertheless, it is the job of the communicator to respectfully address the issues raised.
Early in the COVID-19 pandemic Jamaica received international kudos for its response to the management of the situation. The country pretty much followed the communication practices outlined above by the WHO. It has achieved limited success in getting the population to be vaccinated. However, according to a Northern Caribbean University study, the people complain that the health authorities have not sufficiently addressed issues raised by them. As the world continues to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and prepares for the next public health outbreak, countries, cities, communities and organisations must now review their emergency response and business continuity plans to ensure that effective communication systems and allied procedures are revised according to international standards. The ISO 22301 standard provides a framework for the setting up of business continuity plans.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.