Key topics in pandemic health risk communication: A qualitative study of expert opinions and knowledge

  1. Siv Hilde Berg
  2. Marie Therese Shortt
  3. Jo Røislien
  4. Daniel Adrian Lungu
  5. Henriette Thune
  6. Siri Wiig

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Science communication can provide people with more accurate information on pandemic health risks by translating complex scientific topics into language that helps people make more informed choices on how to protect themselves and others. During pandemics, experts in medicine, science, public health, and communication are important sources of knowledge for science communication. This study uses the COVID-19 pandemic to explore these experts’ opinions and knowledge of what to communicate to the public during a pandemic. The research question is: What are the key topics to communicate to the public about health risks during a pandemic?

Method

We purposively sampled 13 experts in medicine, science, public health, and communication for individual interviews, with a range of different types of knowledge of COVID-19 risk and communication at the national, regional and hospital levels in Norway. The interview transcripts were coded and analysed inductively in a qualitative thematic analysis.

Results

The study’s findings emphasise three central topics pertaining to communication about pandemic health risk during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway: 1) how the virus enters the human body and generates disease; 2) how to protect oneself and others from being infected; and 3) pandemic health risk for the individual and the society.

Conclusion

The key topics emerging from the expert interviews relate to concepts originating from multiple disciplinary fields, and can inform frameworks for interprofessional communication about health risks during a pandemic. The study highlights the complexity of communicating pandemic messages, due to scientific uncertainty, fear of risk amplification, and heterogeneity in public health and scientific literacy. The study contributes with insight into the complex communication processes of pandemic health risk communication.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0275316
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.03.28.22273033: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: All participants gave written, voluntary and informed consent.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    There are limitations to both approaches. The recipients of communication must regard the message as relevant; this is a drawback of the one-way approach because without knowing their audience experts’ communication may be too detailed and detached from public’s values (9). The drawback of communication interventions informed by audience analysis only is the omission of topics not emphasised by the target group. Pandemic health risk communication also needs to provide people with information that they do not realise they need to protect themselves and others. Communication created based on audience analysis, without expert opinions may fail to fill knowledge gaps (4). There is no one-size-fits-all to the communication of health risk during a pandemic. There will always be unintended effects on some audience members. Both audience analysis and interdisciplinary collaboration among experts in medicine, public health, science, and communication may facilitate the creation of engaging messages with intended outcomes (4). 4.4 Limitations: This study uses a normative expert study approach to collect multi-professional domain-specific knowledge (25). Analytical generalisations made on a theoretical level can inform frameworks for inter-professional pandemic health risk communication and public health emergencies (51). This study holds strong information power due to the quality of the interview dialogue (52), and the inclusion of participants with relevant experiences with the pheno...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2022.03.28.22273033v1 on medRxiv