Dataset Information

Crisis Communication in Public Health Emergencies: The Limits of 'Legal Control' and the Risks for Harmful Outcomes in a Digital Age.

ABSTRACT: Communication by public authorities during a crisis situation is an essential and indispensable part of any response to a situation that may threaten both life and property. In the online connected world possibilities for such communication have grown further, in particular with the opportunity that social media presents. As a consequence, communication strategies have become a key plank of responses to crises ranging from epidemics to terrorism to natural disaster. Such strategies involve a range of innovative practices on social media. Whilst being able to bring about positive effects, they can also bring about a range of harmful unintended side effects. This include economic harms produced by incorrect information and a range of social harms that can be fuelled by myths and rumours, worsening negative phenomena such as stigmatisation and discrimination. Given the potential for such harms, one might expect that affected or potentially affected individuals would be able to challenge such measures before courts or administrative tribunals. As this paper demonstrates however this is not the case. More often than not seemingly applicable legal approaches are unlikely to be able to engage such methods. This is often because such measures represent activities that are purely expressive in nature and therefore not capable of imposing any binding legal or corporeal changes on individuals. Whilst some forms of soft law may pose requirements for public officials involved in such activities (e.g. codes of conduct or of professional ethics), they are not likely to offer potentially harmed individuals the chance to to challenge particular communication strategies before courts or legal tribunals. The result is that public authorities largely have a free reign to communicate how they wish and do not have to have to comply with a range of requirements (e.g. relating to form and substantive) content) that would in general apply to most forms of official administrative act.

SUBMITTER: Quinn P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5799154 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Crisis Communication in Public Health Emergencies: The Limits of 'Legal Control' and the Risks for Harmful Outcomes in a Digital Age.

Quinn Paul P

Life sciences, society and policy 20180206 1

Communication by public authorities during a crisis situation is an essential and indispensable part of any response to a situation that may threaten both life and property. In the online connected world possibilities for such communication have grown further, in particular with the opportunity that social media presents. As a consequence, communication strategies have become a key plank of responses to crises ranging from epidemics to terrorism to natural disaster. Such strategies involve a ran ...[more]

PMID: 29404722

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background The global COVID-19 pandemic has posed a major threat to human life and health, and new media technologies have intensified the spread of risk perception. Purpose This study aimed to explore the impact of risk information ground on online users’ perceived health risks, and further explore the mediating role of psychological distance and the moderating role of self-efficacy. Methods A total of 25 Internet users from different provinces in China were interviewed in-depth, NVIVO.11 was used to qualitatively analyze the interview text data and construct a theoretical model. A total of 492 interviewees were recruited in order to complete a scenario questionnaire, SPSS-27 was used to perform orthogonal experiments, generate eight combinatorial scenarios, analyze demographic data, and clean and prepare data for testing hypotheses. SmartPLS 3.0 was used to test the conceptual model using the structural equation model (SEM) of the partial least squares (PLS). Results The analysis of the SEM model shows that all planned hypotheses (Information fluency → Information diagnosability, Information extensibility → Information diagnosability, Information diagnosability → Psychological distance, Platform interactivity → Scenario embeddedness, Network connectivity → Scenario embeddedness, Scenario embeddedness → Psychological distance, Psychological distance → Risk perception, Psychological distance → Self-efficacy → Risk perception, Information fluency → Information diagnosability → Psychological distance → Risk perception, Information extensibility → Information diagnosability → Psychological distance → Risk perception, Platform interactivity → Scenario embeddedness → Psychological distance → Risk perception, Network connectivity → Scenario embeddedness → Psychological distance → Risk perception) are confirmed. Conclusion This study found that the information ground factors significantly affect online users’ perceptions of health risks, psychological distance mediates the effect of information ground factors on risk perception, and self-efficacy negatively moderates the effect of psychological distance on risk perception.

Project description:BackgroundStrong scientific evidence affirms that climate change is now a public health emergency. Increasingly, climate litigation brought against governments and corporations utilizes international human rights, environmental and climate laws and policies to seek accountability for climate-destructive and health-harming actions. The health impacts of climate change make litigation an important means of pursuing justice and strategically challenging legal systems. Yet there is scant documentation in the literature of the role that public health has played in climate litigation and the legal weight public health narratives are given in such contexts. Therefore, we assessed to what extent courts of law have used public health harm in legal adjudication and sought to provide practical recommendations to address barriers to positioning legal arguments in public health-centric frames.MethodsWe reviewed legal databases to identify all publicly reported, documented, cases of climate litigation filed in any country or jurisdiction between 1990 and September 2020. For the 1641 cases identified, we quantified the frequency of cases where health concerns were explicitly or implicitly raised.FindingsCase numbers are trending upwards, notably in high income countries. Resolution remains pending in over half of cases as the majority were initiated in the past three years. Cases were primarily based in climate and human rights law and brought by a wide range of groups and individuals predominantly against governments. About half of the decided cases found in favour for the plaintiffs. Based on this, we selected the 65 cases that were directly linked to public health. We found economic forces and pricing of health risks play a key role, as courts are challenged by litigants to adjudicate on the responsibility for health impacts.ConclusionsWhile courts of law are receptive to public health science, significant legal reform is needed to enhance leveraging of public health evidence in legal judgements of climate litigation cases. The integration of a public health mandate into a new eco-centric legal paradigm will optimize its potential to promote human well-being-the core objective underpinning both international law, human rights, and public health. Existing legal doctrines and practices can be enhanced to increase the weight of public health arguments in climate legal action and consequently ensure legal rulings in climate litigation prioritize, protect and promote public health.

Project description:The coronavirus pandemic caused a state of panic worldwide. Mixed messages were given about its risk and how to contain it, when trust in authorities and reliable scientific information are essential to reduce unnecessary scares and inappropriate risk perceptions. We know little about public concerns and opinions in health authorities in the Arab world. Thus, an attempt was made to generate such information through a web-based survey. A total of 1074 subjects from Lebanon, Jordan, and Tunisia were recruited to explore their perception of food and non-food risks of infection and the influence of the source of information, trust, and attitudes towards the local authorities' communication of risk. Seventy percent of the respondents were concerned that COVID-19 may be transmitted through food. The perception of risk from touching contaminated surfaces and food packaging and being exposed to infected people during food shopping was even higher. For only less than half of the respondents, the information from local authorities was considered trustworthy and the associated risk communication and response to false rumors were timely, effective, and clear. But the satisfaction level among the Jordanians was remarkably stronger than for the Lebanese and Tunisian respondents. The demographic factors, trust in information, and attitudes towards authorities' performance in risk communication did not influence risk perceptions. Respondents' knowledge was limited based on their chief sources of information, such as social media, local news media broadcasts, and announcements by the World Health Organization. Our conclusion is that unnecessary fear increases among the public when risks that impact heath are unknown. More research in the Arab region is needed to understand the determinants of risk perceptions considering psychological factors on the risk to health. Unfortunately, it is difficult to restrict or contain misleading information from various forms of social media. We recommend that for reducing fear and building confidence with the public for appropriate action during the pandemic, local authorities should enhance the quality and level of details of the information that they share during such crises.

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic led to the necessity of immediate crisis communication by public health authorities. In Germany, as in many other countries, people choose social media, including Twitter, to obtain real-time information and understanding of the pandemic and its consequences. Next to authorities, experts such as virologists and science communicators were very prominent at the beginning of German Twitter COVID-19 crisis communication.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to detect similarities and differences between public authorities and individual experts in COVID-19 crisis communication on Twitter during the first year of the pandemic.MethodsDescriptive analysis and quantitative content analysis were carried out on 8251 original tweets posted from January 1, 2020, to January 15, 2021. COVID-19-related tweets of 21 authorities and 18 experts were categorized into structural, content, and style components. Negative binomial regressions were performed to evaluate tweet spread measured by the retweet and like counts of COVID-19-related tweets.ResultsDescriptive statistics revealed that authorities and experts increasingly tweeted about COVID-19 over the period under study. Two experts and one authority were responsible for 70.26% (544,418/774,865) of all retweets, thus representing COVID-19 influencers. Altogether, COVID-19 tweets by experts reached a 7-fold higher rate of retweeting (t8,249=26.94, P<.001) and 13.9 times the like rate (t8,249=31.27, P<.001) compared with those of authorities. Tweets by authorities were much more designed than those by experts, with more structural and content components; for example, 91.99% (4997/5432) of tweets by authorities used hashtags in contrast to only 19.01% (536/2819) of experts' COVID-19 tweets. Multivariate analysis revealed that such structural elements reduce the spread of the tweets, and the incidence rate of retweets for authorities' tweets using hashtags was approximately 0.64 that of tweets without hashtags (Z=-6.92, P<.001). For experts, the effect of hashtags on retweets was insignificant (Z=1.56, P=.12).ConclusionsTwitter data are a powerful information source and suitable for crisis communication in Germany. COVID-19 tweet activity mirrors the development of COVID-19 cases in Germany. Twitter users retweet and like communications regarding COVID-19 by experts more than those delivered by authorities. Tweets have higher coverage for both authorities and experts when they are plain and for authorities when they directly address people. For authorities, it appears that it was difficult to win recognition during COVID-19. For all stakeholders studied, the association between number of followers and number of retweets was highly significantly positive (authorities Z=28.74, P<.001; experts Z=25.99, P<.001). Updated standards might be required for successful crisis communication by authorities.

Dataset Information

Crisis Communication in Public Health Emergencies: The Limits of 'Legal Control' and the Risks for Harmful Outcomes in a Digital Age.

Publications

Crisis Communication in Public Health Emergencies: The Limits of 'Legal Control' and the Risks for Harmful Outcomes in a Digital Age.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets