Search

Objective:This article considers how health education organizations in the World Health Organization's 9 Vaccine Safety Network (VSN) use Twitter to communicate about vaccines with the public, and whether they answer questions and engage in conversations. Almost no research in public health, to our knowledge, has explored conversational structure on social media among posts sent by different accounts.Methods:Starting with 1,017,176 tweets by relevant users, we constructed 2 corpuses of multi-tweet conversations. The first was 1,814 conversations that included VSN members directly, whereas the second was 2,283 conversations mentioning vaccines or vaccine denialism. The tweets and user metadata were then analyzed using an adaptation of rhetorical structure theory.Results:In the studied data, VSN members tweeted 12,677 times within conversations, compared to their 37,587 lone tweets. Their conversations were shorter than those in the comparison corpus (P < 0.0001), and they were involved in fewer multilogues (P < 0.0001).Conclusion:While there is diversity among organizations, most were tied to the pre-social media broadcast model. In the future, they should try to converse more, rather than tweet more, and embrace best practices in risk communication.

Background:Despite the significant improvement in all components of preparedness in the past decade, there are still gaps between the guidelines and the reality on the ground. The purpose of this study is to explore how Israeli public health and emergency medicine experts perceive the demands for health organization emergency preparedness and the actual practice.Methods:Qualitative phenomenological research. We interviewed 22 Israeli public health and emergency medicine experts face-to-face and conducted a content analysis.Results:The findings revealed barriers in the following areas: preparation and readiness of hospitals, preparedness and readiness in the community, connection between the community and the hospital, inter-agency coordination and interface, interdisciplinary integration, preparedness resources, postcrisis evaluation, assimilating smart technologies, information accessibility, and communication.Conclusions:To reduce the gap between theory and practice, retrospective research and evaluation must be included to learn in depth what strategies and resources should be used during a health crisis. Likewise, profiles should be constructed and the community should be segmented in order to design resilience programs and accommodate information to subpopulations.

ObjectiveRecent years have seen advances in theories and models of risk and crisis communication, with a focus on emerging epidemic infection. Nevertheless, information flow remains unilateral in many countries and does not take into account the public’s polyvocality and the fact that its opinions and knowledge often “compete” with those of health authorities. This article addresses the challenges organizations face in communicating with the public sphere.MethodsOur theoretical approach is conceptualized through a framework that focuses on the public sphere and that builds upon existing guidelines and studies in the context of health and pandemics. We examine how health organizations cope with the public’s transformation from recipients to an active and vocal entity, ie, how and to what extent health organizations address the public’s anxiety and concerns arising in the social media during outbreaks.ResultsAlthough international organizations have aspired to relate to the public as a partner, this article identifies notable gaps.ConclusionsOrganizations must involve the public throughout the crisis and conduct dialogues free of prejudices, paternalism, and preconceptions. Thereby, they can impart precise and updated information reflecting uncertainty and considering cultural differences to build trust and facilitate cooperation with the public sphere. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:447–458)

ObjectiveTo examine their implementation, we analyzed World Health Organization (WHO) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines from 2005 to 2008 for risk communication during an emerging infectious disease outbreak, WHO and CDC reports on implementing the guidelines worldwide after the 2009 H1N1 pandemic; and a case study of a member state.MethodsA qualitative study compared WHO and CDC guidelines from 2005 to 2008 with WHO and CDC reports from 2009 to 2011, documenting their implementation during the H1N1 outbreak and assessed how these guidelines were implemented, based on the reports and Israeli stakeholders (n=70).ResultsEight risk communication subthemes were identified: trust, empowerment, uncertainty, communicating the vaccine, inclusion, identification of subpopulations and at-risk groups, segmentation, and 2-way communication. The reports and case study disclosed a gap between international guidelines and their local-level implementation. The guidelines were mostly top-down communications, with little consideration for individual member-state implementation. The WHO and CDC recommendations were not always based on formative evaluation studies, which undermined their validity.ConclusionsIn formulating effective communication strategies, the first step is to define the goal of a vaccination program. We recommend implementing conceptual elements from the most current theoretical literature when planning communication strategies and increasing organizational involvement in implementing guidelines in future health crises. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;0:1–12)

ObjectiveOur aim was to examine in what terms leading newspapers’ online sites described the current Ebola crisis.MethodsWe employed a quantitative content analysis of terms attributed to Ebola. We found and analyzed 582 articles published between March 23 and September 30, 2014, on the online websites of 3 newspapers: The New York Times, Daily Mail, and Ynet. Our theoretical framework drew from the fields of health communication and emerging infectious disease communication, including such concepts as framing media literacy, risk signatures, and mental models.ResultsWe found that outbreak and epidemic were used interchangeably in the articles. From September 16, 2014, onward, epidemic predominated, corresponding to when President Barack Obama explicitly referred to Ebola as an epidemic. Prior to Obama’s speech, 86.8% of the articles (323) used the term outbreak and only 8.6% (32) used the term epidemic. Subsequently, both terms were used almost the same amount: 53.8% of the articles (113) used the term outbreak and 53.3% (112) used the term epidemic.ConclusionsEffective communication is crucial during public health emergencies such as Ebola, because language framing affects the decision-making process of social judgments and actions. The choice of one term (outbreak) over another (epidemic) can create different conceptualizations of the disease, thereby influencing the risk signature. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:669–673)

ObjectiveThis year alone has seen outbreaks of epidemics such as Ebola, Chikungunya, and many other emerging infectious diseases (EIDs). We must look to the responses of recent outbreaks to help guide our strategies in current and future outbreaks or we risk repeating the same mistakes. The objective of this paper was to conduct a systematic literature review of the methodology used by studies that examined EID communication during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic outbreak through different communication channels or by analyzing contents and strategies.MethodsThis was a systematic review of the literature (n=61) studying risk communication strategies of H1N1 influenza, published between 2009 and 2013, and retrieved from searches of computerized databases, hand searches, and authoritative texts by use of specific search criteria. Searches were followed by review, categorization, and mixed qualitative and quantitative content analysis.ResultsOf 41 articles that used quantitative methods, most used surveys (n=35); some employed content analyses (n=4) and controlled trials (n=2). The 16 articles that employed qualitative methods relied on content analyses (n=10), semi-structured interviews (n=2) and focus groups (n=4). Four more articles used mixed-methods or nonstandard methods. Seven different topic categories were found: risk perception and effects on behaviors, framing the risk in the media, public concerns, trust, optimistic bias, uncertainty, and evaluating risk communication.ConclusionsUp until 2013, studies tended to be descriptive and quantitative rather than discursive and qualitative and to focus on the role of the media as representing information and not as a medium for actual communication with the public. Several studies from 2012, and increasingly more in 2013, addressed issues of discourse and framing and the complexity of risk communication with the public. Formative evaluations that use recommendations from past research when designing communication campaigns from the first stages of crises are recommended. Research should employ diverse triangulation processes based on representatives from different stakeholders. Further studies should address the potential offered by social media to create dialogue with individuals and the public at large. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:199-206)