Crisis Emergency Risk Communication and COVID-19
The outbreaks of different pandemics in the past decades such as HIV, H1N1, and COVID-19, etc. has been the trigger to brainstorm effective and long-lasting health communication models. Generally speaking, the management of public health emergencies and natural disasters has always contained an important communication component that takes the form of risk messages, warnings, evacuation notifications, information regarding medical treatments and symptoms, and messages regarding self-efficacy (Reynolds & Seeger, 2005). Of the several models developed, the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) arose as a model that merges several approaches. CERC acknowledges the complexity of health communication during pandemics, and hence, provides a five-step approach to deal with crises before, during, and after their occurrences, one of which handles precrisis management. Precrisis management is proven to be one of the most effective health risk strategies amid the outbreak of COVID-19 in December 2019 through three approaches.
First and foremost, health communicators use precrisis management in order to overcome any future epidemics. It is fundamental how crises are treated prior to the occurrence of any pandemic. The precrisis management approaches are threefold: 1) better communication with the general audience, 2) early warnings on some imminent threats and preparing the public to respond, and 3) building the alliance among different groups (Garfin et al., 2020; Driedger et al., 2018; Abraham, 2011: Vaughan & Tinker, 2009).
To begin with the first approach, communication with the general audience, Abraham (2011) studied how HIV/AIDS was tackled in health media given it was the first pandemic amid the digital/internet age. Although the internet is a tricky form of media, it is exceptional because it breaks the boundaries between the audience and the communicator (Abraham, 2011). Blogs, Facebook posts, Tweets, and so forth, have turned health lectures into a space for conversation where everyone can share their experience, symptoms, and ways of avoidance (Abraham, 2011). During HIV/AIDS pandemic, people were skeptical of the modern businesses because they believed they were promoting their pharmaceutical products (Abraham, 2011). Henceforth, communication through the social media platforms mentioned above is proven to be stronger in terms of awareness and its reach was broader (Abraham, 2011). This phenomenon was also verified to be more helpful amid H1N1 influenza pandemic. Driedger et al. (2018) gave an example about how awareness regarding H1N1 in Canada was more successful on social media. This pandemic was new, and people did not have any clue on how to treat it (Driedger et al., 2018). Some overused antibiotics, while others were confused between it and seasonal flu (Driedger et al., 2018). Because the public is skeptical of modern businesses, they used the internet in order to engage in health-related conversations (Driedger et al., 2018). Several points took place in these conversations, one of which was that H1N1 is a viral infection and it cannot be treated with antibiotics. Additionally, information was circulated regarding prevention methods such as avoiding crowded places and wearing masks (Driedger et al., 2018). Health communication amid H1N1 is similar to the case of COVID-19. Garfin et al. (2020) showed how people’s integration on social media did not only promote awareness regarding COVID-19, it also encouraged people stick to the prevention and precaution measures of the World Health Organization (WHO). This shows that communication with the general audience is an effective approach.
The second approach, early warnings and preparation, is also discussed by Driedger et al. (2018) and Abraham (2011). Transparency is an effective technique to prepare and warn the public from a given epidemic. During the outburst of HIV/AIDS and H1N1, health communicators warned the public through explaining the disease, its level of spreading, its most vulnerable population, its health repercussions, its death rates, and its treatment (if any) (Driedger et al., 2018; Abraham, 2011). This technique was helpful for several reasons. One, pandemics and diseases were no longer stigmatized; especially HIV/AIDS because it can be easily avoided through condom usage. Two, people became more open to share their experiences due to this de-stigmatization. Three, the public reached a level of knowledge where they know that randomly taking antibiotics will make their immune system weaker rather than treating a viral infection. All the mentioned techniques of early warnings and preparation also appeared amid the outbreak of COVID-19. It was successful because a huge number of people followed the prevention method, i.e., maintained a 6-feet physical distance, did not leave their houses unless necessary, wore their masks regularly, constantly checked their symptoms, and most importantly did not recklessly try to treat COVID-19 with antibiotics. Garfin et al. (2020) confirmed that early warnings and preparation was effective in times of COVID-19.
The third and final approach is building the alliance between different groups. The pandemic affects the sociological, economic, psychological, and health aspects of lives. Additionally, those aspects are interconnected and the need to tackle them altogether requires building cooperation between different agencies, each of which can help with its own area of expertise. In their paper, Vaughan & Tinker (2009) discussed these effects and the factors that affect each of them. They also examined how different parts of the community are expected to operate and respond to a pandemic outbreak (Vaughan & Tinker, 2009). Another example on the need to address the social and political effects of a pandemic is also shown (Abraham, 2011). The urge to draw insights from cultural and social studies of risk and the need to broaden the guidelines of health communication to include the underlying political and social issues were pointed out (Abraham, 2011). The world witnessed a drop in the sociological, economic, psychological, and health aspects of lives during COVID-19 pandemic. Companies were bankrupt, unemployment rates rose, and depression and stress levels increased. The issues addressed by the authors Abraham, Vaughan, and Tinker are indeed tackled by forming cooperation and alliances between different groups of the society. Such an approach is key to handling outbreak precrisis measures.
While Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) is one of the most effective models to deal with the pre-pandemic phase, Carico et al. (2020) claimed that the Health Belief Model (HBM) is also a valuable health communication theory. Perceived susceptibility and severity, perceived benefits, perceived behaviors, and perceived self-efficacy do lead to a change in behavior amid a given pandemic (Carico et al., 2020). Nevertheless, it can only be applied in the midst of the crisis. Additionally, perceived susceptibility and severity may lead to perceived threat (Carico et al., 2020) which raises ethical concerns because fear appeals may only be used if there is a violation of others’ rights. In COVID-19’s case, there is not any violations to individuals’ rights which renders the HBM to be inapplicable for two reasons. One, HBM is only effective when the pandemic has already spread. Two, its use of fear appeals is unethical because it will add further stress on the target audience. Since the beginning of COVID-19 in early 2020, people have been suffering from severe mental illnesses due to the quarantine, isolation, and threat of catching this fatal virus. This shows that HBM cannot be used in the precrisis phase, and CERC delivers the health message to the target audience in a more ethical manner.
Generally speaking, both the Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) and the Health Belief Model (HBM) are effective health communication models. Nevertheless, CERC surpassed HBM in two aspects; especially amid the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic. First, CERC is able to deal with precrisis phase. Second, CERC avoids fear appeals which makes it a more ethical model.
References
Abraham, T. (2011). Lessons from the pandemic: the need for new tools for risk and outbreak communication. Emerging Health Threats Journal, 4(1), 7160.
Carico, R. R., Sheppard, J., & Thomas, C. B. (2020). Community pharmacists and communication in the time of COVID-19: applying the health belief model. Research in Social Administrative Pharmacy.
Garfin, D. R., Silver, R. C., & Holman, E. A. (2020). The novel coronavirus (COVID-2019) outbreak: Amplification of public health consequences by media exposure. Health Psychology.
Michelle Driedger, S., Maier, R., & Jardine, C. (2018). ‘Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t’: communicating about uncertainty and evolving science during the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Journal of Risk Research, 1–19.
Reynolds, B., & Seeger, M. W. (2005). Crisis and emergency risk communication as an integrative model. Journal of health communication, 10(1), 43–55.
Vaughan, E., & Tinker, T. (2009). Effective health risk communication about pandemic influenza for vulnerable populations. American journal of public health, 99(S2), S324-S332.
