Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Herkulaas MvE Combrink, Senior lecturer/ Co-Director, University of the Free State
During a health crisis, the first instinct is often to give people information. Governments make announcements. Experts explain what is happening. Health departments share information on television, radio, social media and through communities. The idea seems simple: give people the right information, and they can make better decisions.
But does simply providing more information resolve uncertainty, misinformation or public concern?
My research focuses on infodemics: using artificial intelligence and machine learning to understand how misinformation spreads, identify information voids, and analyse the concerns and questions that emerge during a crisis.
In a recent paper, a group of researchers involved in studying infodemics and I examined the system South Africa put in place to understand public concerns and what responses were recommended to address them.
During the COVID pandemic, South Africa’s national Department of Health established a technical Risk Communication and Community Engagement working group that used a research approach called social listening to identify what people were saying, asking and worrying about in relation to the pandemic.
To do this, public conversations and feedback were tracked across social media, online news, public WhatsApp streams, call centres and community channels.
Regular social listening reports brought this information together to identify concerns, misinformation, rumours and gaps in understanding. These reports alerted health authorities and partners to emerging concerns, and provided recommended actions for addressing them.
The social listening system was structured as a circular process, described as: listen, understand the problem, recommend a response, and keep listening.
We wanted to understand two things:
We studied 91 reports produced between 2021 and 2023. What emerged was that similar concerns kept appearing, despite the existence of a system to address them.
What people were worried about
At least two researchers reviewed the information independently so that the findings did not depend on one person’s judgment. We grouped statements that were saying the same or very similar things. In total, we identified 964 instances of misinformation across 12 themes and 573 recommended actions across six themes.
More than half of the misinformation was directly about COVID. The rest was about vaccines and various health-related concerns.
The reports reflected recurring areas of uncertainty and misinformation around vaccine safety and side effects, trust, treatments and government communication.
The recommendations focused on improving how health information was communicated and managed, and on working more directly with communities.
This meant going beyond broadcasting the same national message to everyone. Recommendations included community information sessions using local media platforms, and engagement activities which included working with people within communities who could place complex health information into a locally relevant language and context.
Why did the concerns keep appearing?
Our study did not track what happened after recommendations were made. Furthermore, the study could not determine whether individual recommendations were implemented, how widely they reached communities, or whether they changed what people understood, believed or did.
It is possible that concerns recurred because information environments change. New questions emerge, information voids develop as circumstances change, and misinformation can reappear or take different forms. A concern appearing again at a later point therefore does not necessarily mean that exactly the same information problem has persisted.
This is why the gap between listening and outcome matters. Identifying a concern is only the first step. What also matters is how that concern is translated into a response, whether the response reaches the intended audience, whether it addresses the underlying question, uncertainty or information void, and whether anything changes afterwards.
Across the reports, five principles appeared repeatedly that can help health authorities and risk communication practitioners translate social listening insights into more responsive public health communication.
Firstly, understand the concern. Social listening can show health communicators what people are worried about, instead of assuming what people need to know.
Secondly, use that information to improve how health information is framed. If the concern is about vaccine side effects, for example, providing general information about COVID may not address the actual concern.
Thirdly, work with trusted people to communicate and engage with communities. The reports recommended community participation as well as involvement from public figures and other credible voices. The purpose is to communicate through relationships and voices that communities recognise.
Fourth, use appropriate communication channels. Something posted online does not necessarily require an online response. Communication can be through community radio, newspapers, faith based and community organisations, outreach programmes and community health workers.
Lastly, keep listening because concerns change. New rumours appear, old ones return, and people’s questions change as circumstances change.
The purpose of social listening is not simply to build another dashboard counting posts, likes and mentions. Its value lies in connecting what is being heard to decisions about what needs to be communicated, to whom, through whom and through which channels, and then listening again to determine whether the information environment has changed.
When we hear a concern, we should ask: Who is saying this? Why are they worried? Could this cause harm? Who do they trust? What language do they speak? Where do they get their information from? And, after we respond, has anything changed?
These findings matter beyond COVID-19, as it will not be the last time countries face uncertainty, fear and rapidly changing information. The next challenge may be another infectious disease, a vaccine, a new treatment or an entirely different public emergency.
The unanswered question is what happens between identifying a concern, recommending or implementing a response, and determining whether anything changes in what people understand, believe or do. Social listening gives us the ability to hear the problem. The next challenge is understanding what happens after we hear it.
– Listen, understand, repeat: the circular approach to good communication in a health crisis
– https://theconversation.com/listen-understand-repeat-the-circular-approach-to-good-communication-in-a-health-crisis-291739
