ZusammenfassungRisikokommunikation spielt eine zentrale Rolle in Public-Health-Notlagen: Sie muss informierte Entscheidungen ermöglichen, schützendes bzw. lebenserhaltendes Verhalten fördern und das Vertrauen in öffentliche Institutionen bewahren. Zudem müssen Unsicherheiten über wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse transparent benannt werden, irrationale Ängste und Gerüchte entkräftet werden. Risikokommunikation sollte die Bevölkerung partizipativ einbeziehen. Ihre Risikowahrnehmung und -kompetenz müssen kontinuierlich erfasst werden. In der aktuellen Pandemie der Coronavirus-Krankheit 2019 (COVID-19) ergeben sich spezifische Herausforderungen für die Risikokommunikation.Der Wissensstand zu vielen wichtigen Aspekten, die COVID-19 betreffen, war und ist oftmals unsicher oder vorläufig, z. B. zu Übertragung, Symptomen, Langzeitfolgen und Immunität. Die Kommunikation ist durch wissenschaftliche Sprache sowie eine Vielzahl von Kennzahlen und Statistiken geprägt, was die Verständlichkeit erschweren kann. Neben offiziellen Mitteilungen und Einschätzungen von Expertinnen und Experten wird über COVID-19 in großem Umfang in sozialen Medien kommuniziert, dabei werden auch Fehlinformationen und Spekulationen verbreitet; diese „Infodemie“ erschwert die Risikokommunikation.Nationale wie internationale Forschungsprojekte sollen helfen, die Risikokommunikation zu COVID-19 zielgruppenspezifischer und effektiver zu machen. Dazu gehören u. a. explorative Studien zum Umgang mit COVID-19-bezogenen Informationen, das COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO), ein regelmäßig durchgeführtes Onlinesurvey zu Risikowahrnehmung und Schutzverhalten sowie eine interdisziplinäre qualitative Studie, die die Konzeption, Umsetzung und Wirksamkeit von Risikokommunikationsstrategien vergleichend in 4 Ländern untersucht.

The present study explores the coverage of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and its associated risks in the German press between 1993 and 2013. Using quantitative content analysis, we explored the corpus of newspaper articles to evaluate the quality of risk reporting. Our findings show an overall increase in the quality of risk-related information: articles contain more substantiating statements describing objectively cognizable phenomena with absolute numbers, prevalences, estimations, and tendencies over time. There is also an increase in the level of precision of such statements. On the other hand, the results suggest that there is little contextualization of risk information and mortality data is often communicated in absolute numbers, which makes it harder to understand and interpret the information. While the debate about the risks of AMR is led by the scientific community, the overall tone of the coverage is alarmist, which can result in growing skepticism of scientific expertise.

Background During outbreaks, uncertainties experienced by affected communities can influence their compliance to government guidance on public health. Communicators and authorities are, hence, encouraged to acknowledge and address such uncertainties. However, in the midst of public health crises, it can become difficult to define and identify uncertainties that are most relevant to address. We analyzed data on COVID-19-related uncertainties from four socio-economic contexts to explore how uncertainties can influence people’s perception of, and response to Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) strategies. Results This qualitative study, which adopts an interpretative approach, is based on data from a documentary review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussions (FGD) with members of the general public and people with barriers to information from Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore. Transcripts from the KII and FGD were coded and analyzed thematically. We interviewed a total of 155 KIs and conducted 73 FGD. Our analysis uncovered a divergence between uncertainties deemed relevant by stakeholders involved in policy making and uncertainties that people reportedly had to navigate in their everyday lives and which they considered relevant during the pandemic. We identified four types of uncertainties that seemed to have influenced people’s assessment of the disease risk and their trust in the pandemic control strategies including RCCE efforts: epidemiological uncertainties (related to the nature and severity of the virus), information uncertainties (related to access to reliable information), social uncertainties (related to social behavior in times of heightened risk), and economic uncertainties (related to financial insecurities). Conclusion We suggest that in future outbreaks, communicators and policy makers could improve the way in which affected communities assess their risk, and increase the trust of these communities in response efforts by addressing non-epidemiological uncertainties in RCCE strategies.

No abstract

Background During outbreaks, uncertainties experienced by affected communities can influence their compliance to government guidance on public health. Communicators and authorities are, hence, encouraged to acknowledge and address such uncertainties. However, in the midst of public health crises, it can become difficult to define and identify uncertainties that are most relevant to address. We analyzed data on COVID-19-related uncertainties from four socio-economic contexts to explore how uncertainties can influence people’s perception of, and response to Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) strategies. Results This qualitative study, which adopts an interpretative approach, is based on data from a documentary review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussions (FGD) with members of the general public and people with barriers to information from Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore. Transcripts from the KII and FGD were coded and analyzed thematically. We interviewed a total of 155 KIs and conducted 73 FGD. Our analysis uncovered a divergence between uncertainties deemed relevant by stakeholders involved in policy making and uncertainties that people reportedly had to navigate in their everyday lives and which they considered relevant during the pandemic. We identified four types of uncertainties that seemed to have influenced people’s assessment of the disease risk and their trust in the pandemic control strategies including RCCE efforts: epidemiological uncertainties (related to the nature and severity of the virus), information uncertainties (related to access to reliable information), social uncertainties (related to social behavior in times of heightened risk), and economic uncertainties (related to financial insecurities). Conclusion We suggest that in future outbreaks, communicators and policy makers could improve the way in which affected communities assess their risk, and increase the trust of these communities in response efforts by addressing non-epidemiological uncertainties in RCCE strategies.