Search

Background: Separating ill or possibly infectious people from their healthy community is one of the core principles of non-pharmaceutical interventions. However, there is scarce evidence on how to successfully implement quarantine orders. We investigated a community quarantine for an entire village in Germany (Neustadt am Rennsteig, March 2020) with the aim of better understanding the successful implementation of quarantine measures., Methods: This cross-sectional survey was conducted in Neustadt am Rennsteig six weeks after the end of a 14-day mandatory community quarantine. The sample size consisted of 562 adults (64% of the community), and the response rate was 295 adults, or 52% (33% of the community)., Findings: National television was reported as the most important channel of information. Contact with local authorities was very limited, and partners or spouses played a more important role in sharing information. Generally, the self-reported information level was judged to be good (211/289 [73.0%]). The majority of participants (212/289 [73.4%]) approved of the quarantine, and the reported compliance was 217/289 (75.1%). A self-reported higher level of concern as well as a higher level of information correlated positively with both a greater acceptance of quarantine and self-reported compliant behaviour., Interpretation: The community quarantine presented a rare opportunity to investigate a public health intervention for an entire community. In order to improve the implementation of public health interventions, public health risk communication activities should be intensified to increase both the information level (potentially leading to better compliance with community quarantine) and the communication level (to facilitate rapport and trust between public health authorities and their communities)., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Biological risk management in public health focuses on the impact of outbreaks on health, the economy, and other systems and on ensuring biosafety and biosecurity. To address this broad range of risks, the International Health Regulations (IHR, 2005) request that all member states build defined core capacities, risk communication being one of them. While there is existing guidance on the communication process and on what health authorities need to consider to design risk communication strategies that meet the requirements on a governance level, little has been done on implementation because of a number of factors, including lack of resources (human, financial, and others) and systems to support effective and consistent capacity for risk communication. The international conference on "Risk communication strategies before, during and after public health emergencies" provided a platform to present current strategies, facilitate learning from recent outbreaks of infectious diseases, and discuss recommendations to inform risk communication strategy development. The discussion concluded with 4 key areas for improvement in risk communication: consider communication as a multidimensional process in risk communication, broaden the biomedical paradigm by integrating social science intelligence into epidemiologic risk assessments, strengthen multisectoral collaboration including with local organizations, and spearhead changes in organizations for better risk communication governance. National strategies should design risk communication to be proactive, participatory, and multisectoral, facilitating the connection between sectors and strengthening collaboration.

Current risk assessment and risk communication of biosafety and biosecurity concerns lack a convenient metric and conceptual framework. The absence of such a systematic tool makes communication more difficult and can lead to ambiguous public perception of and response to laboratory biosafety incidents and biosecurity threats. A new 7-category scoring scale is proposed for incidents and situations in laboratories related to the handling of human and animal pathogens. The scale aims to help clarify risk categories, facilitate coordination and communication, and improve public understanding of risk related to biosafety and biosecurity.

Objective: Risk communication plays a central role in the management of infectious disease. The World Health Organization's 2005 International Health Regulations have highlighted the need for countries to strengthen their capacities in this area to ensure effective responses to public health emergencies. We surveyed laboratories, hospitals, and public health institutions in Germany to detail the current situation regarding risk communication and crisis management and to identify which areas require further development., Methods: A mixed methods approach was adopted. An initial questionnaire was distributed to relevant persons in laboratories and hospitals, and semistructured interviews were conducted with selected participants. Representatives from state public health authorities, federal agencies, and media also were interviewed to add additional contextual information to the questionnaire responses., Results: Based on the responses received, the universal sense among key stakeholders was that risk communication and crisis communication measures must be improved. Collaborative working was a consistent theme, with participants suggesting that a partnering strategy could help to improve performance. This approach could be achieved through better coordination between groups, for example, through a knowledge-sharing policy., Conclusions: More research is needed on how such collaboration might be implemented, along with a general conceptual framework for risk communication to underpin the overall strategy.

Communication interventions during public health emergencies (e.g. infectious disease outbreaks) are increasingly acknowledged as a determinant of success in preparedness, response and recovery. Challenges related to the current outbreak of Ebola virus in West Africa once again reveal the need to strengthen our understanding of the central importance and complexity of risk communication and social mobilisation strategies. There is little hard evidence, however, on the impact of various communication interventions upon the dynamics of public health emergencies to guide our capacity development. This article proposes a new evaluative framework which builds on an understanding of risk communication as an interactive, holistic, continuous and engaging activity that focuses on dialogue, intelligence gathering, building relationships over time with a knowledge base informed by new and accessible communication technologies (e.g. social media and networks) and supportive environments. Our hypothesis is that impact is measureable through the evaluation of identifiable performance parameters related to the dynamics of an outbreak. Our assumption is that risk communication interventions that lead to earlier detection, faster response, smoother coordination and a smarter legacy (ability to use processes and outcomes to improve current and future performance) lead to lower morbidity and mortality (reduced AUCepidemic curve). This new evaluation framework for risk communication measures the relation between a baseline dynamic of epidemic and communication activities and the changed dynamic resulting from risk communication activities (e.g. earlier detection, faster response, smoother coordination and smarter legacy). We believe that a better understanding of how the two dynamics relate can lead to a better management of future public health emergencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]