50
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Effective health communication – a key factor in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic

      editorial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Over the course of March 2020, the everyday life of most people changed from normal to extraordinary around the globe. By the beginning of March, there had been serious outbreaks of COVID-19 in a limited number of countries, such as China, South Korea, Iran and Italy, while many others experienced a lull before the storm. People in unaffected countries understood that the Corona SARS CoV-2 virus might reach their shores at one point; the question was when and how hard it would hit. By the end of March, many governments had ordered drastic measures. Schools and university campuses were shut down. Shops, restaurants and companies were closed. People in many different jobs were asked to work from home, and many were in quarantines. 1 A massive flow of health information The scale of the crisis and governments’ responses have been matched by a colossal flow of information about COVID-19 in terms of 24/7 news coverage, televised press conferences provided by both political leaders and health authorities, prime time speeches to the people by kings, presidents, prime ministers and religious leaders, as well as news analyses, debates and social media posts. This massive flow of health information and viewpoints on the pandemic is unprecedented and varied. While young people prefer information through social media such as Instagram or YouTube, older adults are generally informed through national evening television and newspapers. Migrants and refugees may be more effectively reached by migrant community leaders and news sources from their countries of origin. As the pandemic has developed, the need to provide clear, honest and valid information to the public all over the world has become obvious, as expressed in a February editorial in the Lancet, concluding that "There may be no way to prevent a COVID-19 pandemic in this globalised time, but verified information is the most effective prevention against the disease of panic" [1]. Political leaders and health experts have a special responsibility to provide us with accurate information, and to implement measures that require behavior change to fight the pandemic. However, in the near chaotic flow of information, each and every one of us, in different roles and with different responsibilities, may contribute to improve the flow of information and debate on COVID-19. Health communication is a key and necessary factor in saving lives during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis. Accurate and well-developed health communication can facilitate how societies handle uncertainty and fear, promote and accomplish adherence to necessary behavior change, and meet individuals’ fear and foster hope in the face of a crisis. Professionals in the fields of health communication, patient education, and health behavior change have a special responsibility to contribute to the spread of concise and valid information in different contexts. 2 How to handle uncertainty and fear COVID-19 is scary for many reasons. The two foremost grounds for this high rate of fear and anxiety are how contagious and lethal this pandemic appears to be, especially for older people [2]. The fact that the virus involves a symptom-free incubation period of on average almost a week for the majority of those infected [3], in which contagiousness is maybe most prominent, increases the notion that this is an invisible enemy, inducing a feeling of losing control over ones’ lives. Consequently, both leaders and clinicians face the difficult task of making people feel safe with uncertainty. Uncertainty about COVID-19 and its spread is an obvious challenge for health communicators giving information about this condition. We simply have limited experience and knowledge, and not just about contagiousness and lethality. We know too little about the mutation rate of the virus, if herd immunity will develop and how much that will protect us, whether a vaccine will be efficient, and not the least, why the course of the disease seems to vary so much, dependent on age and frailty. Furthermore, the consequences of a societal lock down are likely disastrous for many people. The way from uncertainty to panic may be brief. Communication under such conditions is demanding. We will suggest four elements that are particularly important in determining how to communicate health information to the public effectively. First, it is important to declare openly and honestly what is known and what is unknown and to stick to the facts as much as possible [4]. We must also acknowledge the temporality of ‘facts’ as a work in progress. What data we have today will be updated and perhaps modified given new evidence related to the disease and its management. We also need to confirm accurate sources of this information. Given how rapidly things are changing, it is important to be clear that when recommendations change, this is based on new, previously unknown evidence. Second, information should be consistent and specific. Even if we acknowledge that there is much we do not know, it is important not to get stuck in vagueness. Research on severe diseases has shown that illness uncertainty, a patient’s inability to determine the meaning of illness-related events, can be a result of ambiguity (conflicting, incomplete, or inadequate information); complexity (difficult to understand information); and unpredictability (likelihood or risk of future outcome of the disease) [[5], [6]]. Thus, it is important to provide information in clear, specific, unambiguous, and consistent lay language. Beyond keeping the messages consistent and specific, also the number of spokespersons should be limited and consistent. Third, we suggest that it is important to demonstrate ability to make decisions in a situation characterized by uncertainty, with confidence (signaling ability to feel safe in the situation) and honesty (that the decision might prove wrong). From a health communication perspective, part of this leadership might be to publically acknowledge and praise those politicians, scientists, and health care providers at the front line working to solve immediate problems for the benefit of all. Fourth, we should acknowledge emotions. Uncertainty in illness has been associated with anxiety, depression and distress [3,7,8], all of which can result in panic and passivity, rather than the community working together to change behavior in ways that will reduce the COVID-19 risk. Information should therefore be empathic, by demonstrating concern and by acknowledge the impact of the situation for the individual and their lives, and not by being aloof or too factual [9,10]. Clinicians will know that this is a challenging task, often helped by reciprocal trust. Fear is a natural response in the face of the pandemic. Fear does not go away by being ignored. Rather the opposite, fear is easier to handle when it is acknowledged [11]. Petersen has coined a term, “optimistic anxiety”, suggesting that “citizens must be anxious enough to take the advice from the authorities to heart and optimistic enough as to feel that their actions make a difference” [12]. 3 How to promote behavior change: lessons from health communication research To reduce the risk of COVID-19 in the community, it is critical that we pay attention to optimal methods to ensure behavior change, both on the individual as well as on the community level. How recommendations are framed is important to secure adherence. We know from research on previous pandemics that official recommendations are met with skepticism by many [13]. The relevant behavior changes to fight the pandemic are well known by now: Wash your hands regularly! Cough in a tissue or in your elbow! Keep distance - Social distancing! Clean surfaces! Do not touch your face! The messages are simple, but are not necessarily simple to implement for all. Even if everybody had the correct and the same information, behavior change would still be a challenge. Many of these recommendations require changing subconsciously deployed behavioral routines. This will require communication raising to awareness actions that are mindlessly habitual. As we all know, the way from knowing to doing is not easy; the intention-behavior gap has been well documented. Knowing is not the same as doing. In the last few weeks, a number of papers and websites have been produced, which may serve as helpful resources for everyone engaged in health communication [10,[14], [15], [16], [17]]. We will briefly mention four recommendations regarding behavior change. First, Michie and colleagues have suggested the usefulness of creating a mental model about how contamination works and how this can be prevented [16]. The better inner picture you have of how the virus gets into the environment and is then inhaled, the better you understand and remember how its route to transmission may be blocked. While much of the general public has a mental model of COVID-19 as a scary and disruptive disease, other sectors of a population may not share that sense of urgency and thus may ignore behaviors, such as social distancing, that can help stop the spread. Another obvious challenge here is that the mental model of experts is not even yet settled, as we learn more and more along the way and need to wait for reliable evidence to be collected and shared. Second, behavior change requires not only verbal recommendations, but also real interventions in the environment and even legislation. Lunn et al. point out that it is not enough to advise individuals to wash hands and cough in the elbow. It is just as important to change the environment in a way that facilitates the new behavior, in this case for instance by placing alcohol-based hand sanitizer (AHS) in highly visible locations [10]. Moreover, it is important not only to say “Don’t!”, but rather to replace one behavior with another and make the behavior easy, for instance by building it into existing behavioral routines. The norm of not shaking hands as part of social distancing e.g., may lead to awkward, uncomfortable situations as we have to change routines. Demonstrations on TV by role models of touching elbows or a Japanese style bow or nod of the head are examples of suggesting an easy, alternative behavior for shaking hand. This will increase self-efficacy, which is an important determinant of behavior change. Restrictive legislation may also be required. It is interesting to see that the road of restrictive legislation is increasingly being used to promote health behavior change. This route is observed in recent years in the prevention of smoking and also now used in many countries to reinforce adherence to social distancing. Third, even if citizens are more isolated than ever, in more or less self-imposed quarantines, appeals to collective action and a spirit of we-are-in-it-together are very important to flatten the curve and reduce the rate of infection [10]. The attitude and behavior of leaders at all levels are important. For instance, in Norway politicians appeal to the Norwegian tradition of “dugnad”, a word for joint action on family or community level. In several countries politicians and heads of state have given national speeches acknowledging how the pandemic creates fear, and with appeals to solidarity and shared responsibilities. A demonstration of concern from role models may have a role in persuading the public to adhere to recommendations. Fourth, maintaining behavior change over time, including washing hands, maintain social distance, sneezing into one’s elbow and not touching one’s face are important, in particular when restrictions have lasted for several weeks or even months [[18], [19], [20]]. It is important to acknowledge that transition of initiation of behavior to maintenance requires a change in the self-regulation of the behavior. Behavior initiation requires intentional behavior planning whereas maintenance becomes more habitual and requires less self-regulation. Self-efficacy is relevant in the motivational phase of behavior, when behavior intentions are being formulated. To initiate a new health behavior, individuals must be confident in their ability and skills to perform that behavior (action self-efficacy). To maintain behavior, individuals must be repetitive in their performance of the desired behaviors and confident in their ability to overcome barriers in order to continue that behavior (maintenance self-efficacy). 4 Challenges for the clinician A final important area for implementation of health communication in the COVID-19 crisis is to consider the challenges clinicians face in clinical encounters with patients whether in person or to an increasing extent virtual encounters. Net-based manuals have been developed, for instance by VitalTalk [21] and the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland [22]. These web sites are valuable resources for clinicians on how to tailor communication skills to the needs of patients with COVID-19. Important decisions are to be made with the patient and the family about the pros and cons of staying at the ICU and its impact on the quality of life in the long run. Serious infections with COVID-19 require a long stay at the ICU with mechanical ventilation which is highly invasive. For some patients, the physical impact both of the disease itself and invasive treatment can be huge. A study by Udelsman et al. among older, higher-risk patients presenting for elective procedures showed that most patients chose limitations to life-sustaining treatments [23]. This finding highlights the need for in-depth goals of care discussion and establishment of advance care preferences before any procedure or operative intervention, preferable even before one is affected with COVID-19. We also need to acknowledge the mental health effects of extended social isolation for many vulnerable individuals [18,19,24]. For example, social isolation is one of the most important contributors to all-cause mortality in older adults. On the one hand, if we are unable to decrease the rate of progression of the pandemic (“flatten the curve”), the healthcare system will become overwhelmed, and older adults are those at greatest risk for death from the direct effects of infection. Yet, on the other hand, social isolation puts older adults at risk for mental and physical adverse effects. The current COVID-19 crisis is a unique situation. Not in the history of mankind has a widespread pandemic been met with such extensive and invasive action from political authorities and the healthcare community. However, the communication around the measures taken can be improved in many cases. The academic fields we discussed here offer many important insights for anybody with a need to advise leaders or communicate directly with their local communities or the public at large. A situation like this requires a broad, interdisciplinary response from the research community [25]. Professionals in the fields of communication, education, and health behavior change need to take responsibility for carefully evaluating what is known and insights currently emerging. We are in a position to use their expertise to counsel others to adjust their strategies to fit the new and largely unknown situation, and heeding the call to action can play a significant part in guiding our societies through these challenging times. Effective health communication is a key factor in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application

          Background: A novel human coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), was identified in China in December 2019. There is limited support for many of its key epidemiologic features, including the incubation period for clinical disease (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]), which has important implications for surveillance and control activities. Objective: To estimate the length of the incubation period of COVID-19 and describe its public health implications. Design: Pooled analysis of confirmed COVID-19 cases reported between 4 January 2020 and 24 February 2020. Setting: News reports and press releases from 50 provinces, regions, and countries outside Wuhan, Hubei province, China. Participants: Persons with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection outside Hubei province, China. Measurements: Patient demographic characteristics and dates and times of possible exposure, symptom onset, fever onset, and hospitalization. Results: There were 181 confirmed cases with identifiable exposure and symptom onset windows to estimate the incubation period of COVID-19. The median incubation period was estimated to be 5.1 days (95% CI, 4.5 to 5.8 days), and 97.5% of those who develop symptoms will do so within 11.5 days (CI, 8.2 to 15.6 days) of infection. These estimates imply that, under conservative assumptions, 101 out of every 10 000 cases (99th percentile, 482) will develop symptoms after 14 days of active monitoring or quarantine. Limitation: Publicly reported cases may overrepresent severe cases, the incubation period for which may differ from that of mild cases. Conclusion: This work provides additional evidence for a median incubation period for COVID-19 of approximately 5 days, similar to SARS. Our results support current proposals for the length of quarantine or active monitoring of persons potentially exposed to SARS-CoV-2, although longer monitoring periods might be justified in extreme cases. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, and Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            COVID-19: fighting panic with information

            The Lancet (2020)
            As governments and health officials worldwide grapple with the epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, new developments in the accounting of and response to cases are occurring as part of a swiftly evolving crisis. On Feb 11, 2020, WHO announced an official name for the novel coronavirus disease: coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). After a stabilisation in the number of new cases, on Feb 13, 2020, China reported nearly 15 000 new COVID-19 cases and 242 deaths in a single day in Hubei province. Previously, tallies had included only laboratory-confirmed cases, and this spike resulted from reclassification of old and probable cases diagnosed with broader clinical criteria, including radiographical confirmation of pneumonia. These revised criteria have been applied only in Hubei province and might provide a clearer picture of the situation at the centre of the outbreak, as the seemingly low previous numbers had caused doubt and consternation about the accuracy of reporting. WHO has indicated that the trajectory of the epidemic has probably remained the same, but it is still unclear which way it will go and the global community must remain vigilant. How key information is relayed to the public during the next phase of the epidemic is critical. With as many as 72 000 cases, the national security strategy for COVID-19 within China has shifted to so-called wartime control measures, putting cities on lockdown and affecting an estimated 760 million people. Regional identification, isolation, and treatment implementation have brought a range of high-tech and militarised approaches. Identification of suspected cases has included extensive efforts in contact tracing, using everything from transportation documents to mobile phone hotlines. Harsh criticism has been levied about the silencing of dissenting voices in China, including Dr Li Wenliang, who was arrested after raising concerns about the virus on social media and subsequently died from COVID-19. Other concerns have been raised about reported measures such as isolation and mass round-ups and quarantining of people at makeshift medical facilities for unspecified durations. Western media have also reported that some residential areas have been sealed off in a grid system, with checkpoints and monitoring of movements, effectively detaining residents. Some internal public transport and external travel to China has been halted via advisories and bans restricting commercial flights. However, there is little evidence that travel bans effectively halt the spread of infectious diseases, and instead they can hamper supply chains, lead to stigma and mistrust, and might violate the principles of the International Health Regulations, as outlined in a Comment published in The Lancet. The international COVID-19 response has been focused on avoiding a pandemic, of which many experts suggest we could be in the early stages. As of Feb 18, 2020, WHO reported 804 total confirmed cases and three deaths in 25 countries outside China. In addition to confirmed cases from travellers to Wuhan and on cruise ships, countries including Singapore, Japan, Thailand, and South Korea have identified clusters of locally transmitted cases. The numbers are small, but the rate of secondary and tertiary transmission is of grave concern and misinformation and fear are rampant. Thousands of medical workers in China are thought to have COVID-19 and, as countries implement scaled up diagnosis and surveillance, the risks from inadequate protective gear and shortages in testing kits are heightened. The first confirmed case in Africa (in Egypt) is worrying, as weak primary health-care systems could undermine preparedness. WHO has called for more investment in surveillance and preparedness, but governments have been slow to take heed. A huge amount of funding has been committed for vaccine platforms but, even with four candidates in development, there is unlikely to be a viable vaccine for at least another 12–18 months. Dozens of clinical trials of treatment are underway, but it will be weeks or months before the results are known. Addressing the Munich Security Conference on Feb 15, 2020, WHO Director-General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said, “we're not just fighting an epidemic; we're fighting an infodemic.” The ease through which inaccuracies and conspiracies can be repeated and perpetuated via social media and conventional outlets puts public health at a constant disadvantage. It is the rapid dissemination of trustworthy information—transparent identification of cases, data sharing, unhampered communication, and peer-reviewed research—which is needed most during this period of uncertainty. There may be no way to prevent a COVID-19 pandemic in this globalised time, but verified information is the most effective prevention against the disease of panic. © 2020 TPG/Getty Images 2020 Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Reconceptualization of the Uncertainty in Illness Theory

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Patient Educ Couns
                Patient Educ Couns
                Patient Education and Counseling
                Published by Elsevier B.V.
                0738-3991
                1873-5134
                23 April 2020
                May 2020
                23 April 2020
                : 103
                : 5
                : 873-876
                Affiliations
                [0005]Patient Education and Counseling
                [0010]Division of General Internal Medicine, Departments of Population Health Sciences and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, NC, United States
                [0015]School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [0020]Health Services ResearchUnit HØKH, Akershus University Hospital and Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
                [0025]Dept. Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [0030]Dept. of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
                [0035]Department of Communication, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States
                [0040]Amsterdam School of Communication Research / ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                [0045]Amsterdam School of Communication Research / ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
                Author notes
                [* ]Corresponding author. arnstein.finset@ 123456medisin.uio.no
                Article
                S0738-3991(20)30185-3
                10.1016/j.pec.2020.03.027
                7180027
                32336348
                a4a04358-a190-4ae4-9db7-a1b311207ee1
                © 2020 Published by Elsevier B.V.

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Education
                Education

                Comments

                Comment on this article