Dont panic! Analysing communications for pandemic preparedness from - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Don’t panic! Analysing communications for pandemic preparedness from the perspective of EU risk management Emily Loud and Iain Simpson, PANDEM emilysloud@gmail.com @eloudness pandem.eu.com

Current context

PANDEM: background • Horizon 2020 Phase I demonstration • 18 months, 7 partners from 5 countries • Aim: identify innovative concepts to strengthen pandemic management in EU, through exploring best practice and research gaps. • Three core project areas: • Communications • Surveillance & Risk Assessment • Governance

What is pandemic communications? • Information transmitted, before, during & about • Any audience/channel • To help pandemic control

What is pandemic communications? “an epidemic occurring worldwide, or over a very wide area, crossing international boundaries and usually affecting a large number of people” Last (2001)

Pandemic communications & risk Risk communications: “Information exchange about health risks caused by environmental, industrial, or agricultural, processes, policies, or products among individuals, groups, and institutions” (Glik 2007)

Pandemic communications, risk Risk communications: Risk = Hazard + Outrage (Sandman 1994)

Pandemic communications, risk • WHO outbreak communications guidelines (2005) • Risk communications is a core competency of the IHR (2005). • EU’s Decision 1082

Review questions What is good practice for pandemic communications, and how can it best be established and shared across the EU? What are the key challenges and evidence gaps that require research in this area?

Methodologies • Systematic literature review • Expert workshop • Individual interviews with experts from Sweden, UK, Canada and a European level global health organisation • Comparisons with other H2020 research projects & similar

Literature review • 224 articles, PRISMA • Mostly observational studies, reviews • Mostly at national level • Predominantly from wealthy countries, US (22%) vs LICs (3%)

Results: literature Good practice • Multi-channel approach, with clear and consistent messaging • Transparent communications and involving the public

Results: literature Gaps and needs • Tools to measure, evaluate and feedback • Targeting specific groups with relevant communications • Skills in risk communications & social media • Big gap between theories and practices

Results: experts Workshop & interviews Good practice • Embedded risk communications function, combined with CBRN • 24/7 communication, high investment in staff & resources • Establishing relationships before pandemic

Results: experts Workshop & interviews Gaps and needs • Real time data, using this for feedback, proving impact • Making messages relevant • Getting journalists, health workers & scientists on side • Political environment of communications, spokespeople

Other projects but…. • Large scale evaluations, monitoring missing, & low evidence for causation and impact.

Conclusions Good practice • Early, transparent intervention • Embedded communications skills • Consistent messages across multiple channels • BUT limited, generally low quality evidence for what works

Conclusions Gaps and needs • Implementation of risk communications principles in the political environment, listening rare • M&E tools: to measure risk perception, trust and other variables, test the link between communications and behaviour • Identification of priority populations & target communications

Risk guidelines Impact? Risk academics Risk managers

Next steps? Proposing research priorities for phase II, which could… • Build skills through existing networks • Help countries evaluate, allocate necessary resources • Incentivise higher quality research

Questions? Emily Loud and Iain Simpson, PANDEM emilysloud@gmail.com @eloudness pandem.eu.com

References Sandman, P. M. (1994). Risk Communication Encyclopedia of the Environment R. A. Eblen and W. R. Eblen. Boston, MA, Houghton Mifflin: 620–623. Last, J. (2001). Pandemic. A dictionary of epidemiology J. Last. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Glik, D. C. (2007). "Risk Communication for Public Health Emergencies." Annu Rev Public Health 28: 33– 54.

Image credits • https://busydarling.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/ hitchhikers_guide_to_galaxy-dont-panic.jpg