This article describes a model of communication known as crisis and emergency risk communication (CERC). The model is outlined as a merger of many traditional notions of health and risk communication with work in crisis and disaster communication. The specific kinds of communication activities that should be called for at various stages of disaster or crisis development are outlined. Although crises are by definition uncertain, equivocal, and often chaotic situations, the CERC model is presented as a tool health communicators can use to help manage these complex events.The anthrax attack of September 2001 was arguably one of the most public and disruptive public health emergencies of recent history. Although much larger and widespread health risks exist, such as the avian flu, the emergence of sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), the upswing in skin cancer, and the recent West Nile virus outbreaks, anthrax was new in terms of the perceived threat and the intentional nature of the attack. Moreover, because anthrax was connected in terms of time and perception to the 9=11 World Trade Center disasters, it created heightened public concern and widespread public outrage. The event placed significant pressure on the public health community to communicate effectively within a context of immediacy, threat, and high uncertainty.Health professionals, including those in the health communication domain, often frame their messages regarding the possibility of serious public health harm as risk communication

Cancer patients (n = 913) who received treatment within the previous 2 years were interviewed to quantify reports of symptoms associated with cancer, measure the impact of symptoms on lifestyles, document experiences with accessing information and treatment for cancer and its symptoms, and record attitudes about the level of care received. Cancer patients were primarily recruited through newspaper ads placed throughout Canada and asked to complete a self-report questionnaire. Patients called a toll-free number and were interviewed to ensure eligibility. Most respondents were female (66%) with breast cancer (64%). Prostate cancer (40%) was the most common diagnosis among males. Almost all respondents (94%) reported experiencing one or more symptoms. Fatigue and anxiety were the most frequently reported symptoms (78% and 77%, respectively). Fatigue was most likely to be self-rated as moderate to severe and was most likely to interfere in normal daily activities. Respondents who experienced fatigue reported a more frequent use of healthcare services (including complementary therapies) than those who did not experience fatigue. Half of the respondents reported trying to find information on fatigue, but only half of these said they had obtained information. The most helpful sources of information were nurses, specialists, and other cancer patients. Respondents were more likely to be dissatisfied with their treatments for their symptoms than for their cancer. This survey indicates that most cancer patients experience symptoms related to the disease and its treatment. The most prevalent symptoms are fatigue and anxiety; fatigue is the most debilitating.

Health communicators at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have developed an integrated model titled Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) as a tool to educate and equip public health professionals for the expanding communication responsibilities of public health in emergency situations. This essay focuses on CERC as a general theoretical framework for explaining how health communication functions within the contexts of risk and crisis. Specifically, the authors provide an overview of CERC and examine the relationship of risk communication to crisis communication, the role of communication in emergency response, and the theoretical underpinnings of CERC. The article offers an initial set of propositions based on the CERC framework and concludes with a discussion of future directions.

During a crisis, an open and empathetic style of communication that engenders the public's trust is the most effective when officials are attempting to galvanize the population to take a positive action or refrain from a harmful act. Although trust is imperative in a crisis, public suspicions of scientific experts and government are increasing for a variety of reasons, including access to more sources of conflicting information, a reduction in the use of scientific reasoning in decision making, and political infighting. Trust and credibility--which are demonstrated through empathy and caring, competence and expertise, honesty and openness, and dedication and commitment--are essential elements of persuasive communication.

No abstract