Dataset Information

Engaging the vulnerable: A rapid review of public health communication aimed at migrants during the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The World Health Organization recommends national risk communications tools targeting migrant communities to contain the spread of COVID-19. Within Europe, migrants are often left behind in healthcare due to structural barriers driven by hostile environment measures. This study aimed to assess inclusion of migrants in COVID-19 prevention measures by evaluating if governmental risk communications are available in common migrant languages across Europe.

Methods

A rapid review was performed in June 2020 to understand the availability of government produced risk communications across Council of Europe member states, namely: COVID-19 health communications, migrant-specific guidelines and COVID-19 helplines.

Results

96% (45/47) of countries sampled had online government COVID-19 advice. 30% (15/47) issued information in their official language(s), whilst 64% (30/47) of countries delivered information in additional languages. 48% (23/47) translated information into at least one migrant language. However, information on testing or healthcare entitlements in common migrant languages was only found in 6% (3/47). Half (53%; 25/47) of the countries with COVID-19 helpline offered information in at least one alternative language.No government produced risk communications on disease prevention targeting people in refugee camps or informal settlements.

Conclusions

There are clear gaps in the availability of translated COVID-19 risk communications across Europe, excluding migrants from the COVID-19 response. Governments must reflect on the inclusion of migrants within their COVID-19 response and seek to engage vulnerable communities. Governments should urgently partner with non-governmental organizations who already play a key role in addressing unmet health needs.

SUBMITTER: Nezafat Maldonado BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7661962 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a disproportionately hard impact on refugees and other migrants who are often exposed to the virus with limited means to protect themselves. We tested the hypothesis that during the COVID-19 pandemic, refugees and other migrants have suffered a negative impact on mental health and have been unjustly discriminated for spreading the disease in Europe (data collection from April to November 2020).MethodsParticipants in the ApartTogether Survey (N = 8297, after listwise deletion of missing items final N = 3940) provided data regarding to their difficulties to adhere to preventive recommendations against COVID-19 infection (CARE), self-perceived stigmatization (SS), and psychological distress (PD). Structural Equation Modeling was used to investigate PD as a mediator in the pathway linking CARE to SS, while adjusting for the housing and residence status. To improve confidence in the findings, single hold-out sample cross-validation was performed using a train/test split ratio of 0.8/0.2.ResultsIn the exploratory set (N = 3159) SS was associated with both CARE (B = 0.200, p < 0.001) and PD (B = 0.455, p < 0.001). Moreover, PD was also associated with CARE (B = 0.094, p = 0.001) and mediated the effect of CARE on SS (proportion mediated = 17.7%, p = 0.001). The results were successfully replicated in the confirmation set (N = 781; total effect = 0.417, p < 0.001; proportion mediated = 29.7%, p < 0.001). Follow-up analyses also found evidence for an opposite effect (i.e., from SS to CARE, B = 0.132; p < 0.001), suggesting that there might be a vicious circle between the self-perceived stigmatization and the access to health care and the use of preventive measures against COVID-19 infection.ConclusionsRefugees and other migrants who had more difficulties in accessing health care and preventive measures against COVID-19 infection experienced worse mental health and increased discrimination. These negative effects appeared to be stronger for those with more insecure housing and residence status, highlighting from one side the specific risk of insecure housing in the impact of COVID-19 upon mental health and infection protection, and for another side the need to proper housing as a strategy to prevent both COVID-19 and mental distress.

Project description:Scientists are required to communicate science and research not only to other experts in the field, but also to scientists and experts from other fields, as well as to the public and policymakers. One fundamental suggestion when communicating with non-experts is to avoid professional jargon. However, because they are trained to speak with highly specialized language, avoiding jargon is difficult for scientists, and there is no standard to guide scientists in adjusting their messages. In this research project, we present the development and validation of the data produced by an up-to-date, scientist-friendly program for identifying jargon in popular written texts, based on a corpus of over 90 million words published in the BBC site during the years 2012-2015. The validation of results by the jargon identifier, the De-jargonizer, involved three mini studies: (1) comparison and correlation with existing frequency word lists in the literature; (2) a comparison with previous research on spoken language jargon use in TED transcripts of non-science lectures, TED transcripts of science lectures and transcripts of academic science lectures; and (3) a test of 5,000 pairs of published research abstracts and lay reader summaries describing the same article from the journals PLOS Computational Biology and PLOS Genetics. Validation procedures showed that the data classification of the De-jargonizer significantly correlates with existing frequency word lists, replicates similar jargon differences in previous studies on scientific versus general lectures, and identifies significant differences in jargon use between abstracts and lay summaries. As expected, more jargon was found in the academic abstracts than lay summaries; however, the percentage of jargon in the lay summaries exceeded the amount recommended for the public to understand the text. Thus, the De-jargonizer can help scientists identify problematic jargon when communicating science to non-experts, and be implemented by science communication instructors when evaluating the effectiveness and jargon use of participants in science communication workshops and programs.