The necessity of science communication

I read two articles this week, which I just have to share here on this blog. The two articles are both inputs to the discussion on the role of science communication in general society today.

Self-censorship among vaccine researchers

The first article “Anti-Vaccine Activists Have Taken Vaccine Science Hostage” by Melinda Wenner Moyer is published in The New York Times and discusses how the anti-vaccine movement have contributed to what looks like self-censorship in parts of the vaccine science communicty and how it seems to be  eroding the integrity of vaccine science.

“Scientists are so terrified of the public’s vaccine hesitancy that they are censoring themselves, playing down undesirable findings and perhaps even avoiding undertaking studies that could show unwanted effects.”

 

Science Journalist Melinda Wenner Moyer, The New York Times

The article gives example from the vaccine science community where researchers feels pressure from their peers not to publish negative results, but also describes the importance of continuesly studying and transparently discussing also the research that touches upon the negative sides of vaccines. The article closes with an encouragement that researchers, who do good science must share their research – even when there is a risk of its meaning being twisted – and not apply self-censorship.  As the writer points out in the conclusion:

“One thing vaccine scientists and vaccine-wary parents have in common is a desire for the safest and most effective vaccines possible — but vaccines can’t be refined if researchers ignore inconvenient data. Moreover, vaccine scientists will earn a lot more public trust, and overcome a lot more unfounded fear, if they choose transparency over censorship.”

 

Science Journalist Melinda Wenner Moyer, The New York Times

A cry for help

The other article “The Truth Sometimes Hurts” by Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and published in Scientific American responds to Melinda Wenner Moyer’s request that scientists continue to share their knowledge, finding and results also when they hurt.

Kate Marvel however points out that even though science thrives on the oxygen of transparency, reality is that doing it is hard! And that scientists (especially in hot topics like vaccine and climate change) often times are up against beliefs, which are not based on science and therefore cannot be refuted by science:

“But outside the confines of the lab, scientists have to operate in an environment polluted with lies and bad faith. Vaccines do not cause autism, but many people believe they do. And because this belief is not based on evidence, it cannot be refuted by science. But charlatans can still use what appears to be the language of science, weaving inconclusive studies and minor effects into a persuasive web of lies and fear.”

 

Climate scientist Kate Marvel, Scientific American

The reality is that communicating science is hard and especially hard for scientists who are by definition trained primarily to be scientists and not communicators. As Kate Marvel points out, very few scientists receive training in communicating science or are taught how to handle it when their words and conclusions are twister or delibrately misinterpreted and misrepresented.

Kate Marvel shares examples from her own area of work, climate change, where the fear that climate change deniers will misuse scientific findings or transparency about uncertainty in climate change projections to push forward their own agenda. She also points out that there are no institutional rewards for communicating science and thus little institutional incentive to allocate time and energy on communicating their work.

She closes her input to the debate with a heart-felt request:

“So I want to approach this with something the stereotypical scientist is not known for: humility. Please don’t just tell us to be honest, help us to understand how to be transparent in an opaque world.  Truth is messy, and lies can be simple and appealing. I may not know what I’m doing, but I’m willing to listen and learn.”

 

Climate scientist Kate Marvel, Scientific American

Make science communication mandatory

I can only agree with Kate Marvel about the need to offer more insight and training to researchers, scientists and scholars on how to communicate science. I enjoy teaching science communication to Ph.d students at the Faculty of Health at University of Copenhagen, but also experience how little they know and how distant the idea of communicating science outside the scientific world seems to many (luckily it’s definitely not all) of them. Having taught a masters course on Public Health Science Communciation to public health students also at University of Copenhagen was inspirering and I wish it could be mandatory for all students to have some training and insight into how to communicate science . Even if it limited in time, it could at least give them insight into what they may encounter and perhaps give them some appetite to dig a bit deeper into science communciation later on and dare to challenge their own fear of communication what they do.

Thank you to both Melinda Wenner Moyer and Kate Marvel for inspiring inputs into the discussions around the role of science communication in today’s society and for highlighting both the importance of science communication, the risks if we don’t and the need for more training and help .

Patient blogs – a useful social media tool?

In preparation for a training I’ll be giving this fall on using social media in national Tuberculosis (TB) programmes, I have been searching for examples of patient blogs to communicate about TB. I thought that there’d be at least a few different examples out there, but either there are not or maybe I’m just not using the correct search words (or there could of course also be an issue with language barriers).

The only real TB dedicated patient blog I have been able to find is an initiative by MSF called TB&Me. It consists of currently 27 personal blogs by current or past multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) patients from all of the world. The blog, which started already in 2011, is meant as a collaborative blogging project where the patients write (if necessary with assistance) about their experiences of living with MDR-TB and the treatment that they receive, which can involve taking up to 20 pills a day for 24 months and suffering many painful side effects from the toxic drugs.

I know that there are other TB survivors that blog, but many of them are more focused on advocacy around TB rather than sharing their own patient experiences. This is for example the case of the this Romanian blog by Paula Rusu (a Romanian former TB patient and journalist).

Improving drug adherence

Intuitively it sounds like a good idea to have patients blog about their experiences, emotions and reflections. It provides an opportunity to add a personal perspective on the disease, which can be helpful to both the patient him or herself as well as other patients and relatives.

A qualitative research study of the TB&Me project published in PLOS One in 2014 found that the TB&Me blogging experience was useful for adherence to DR-TB treatment and viewed as supportive of the treatment-taking process by all bloggers and project staff, it provided support to patients (peer support, shared experience and reduction in isolation) and the blog gave the patients strength and voice.  The authors conclude that “The TB&Me blog was seen to be associated with positive identified health and emotional benefits. Component 5 of the Stop TB Global Plan highlights the importance of empowering TB patients and communities. Blogging could be a useful tool to help achieve that ambition.”

Patient blogging is not new, but it’s not something that I have studied much before and I’m eager to learn more of the experiences from other disease groups. I believe there are many patient blogs related to chronic diseases like diabetes (a list of patient blogs on diabetes type 1 can be found here) and cancer, but it would be great to get some more insight into where to start and learn a bit more of also the potential negative sides of patient blogging, so please do share any insight you might have with me. Also how patient blogs could be part of broader communication and advocacy around TB. I’d love to get your insights!

Reviving Public Health Science Communication 2.0 and welcoming its name sister

It has been 3 years since the last post. Time flies, but lots have happened: children have been born, home has switch to another country and a new company has emerged on the world stage… But it is due time for Public Health Science Communication 2. to have a revival!

After having completed several freelance assignments related to public health and science communication and seeing the potential for more to arise, I decided to take the leap and create my own consultancy company offering to complete tasks in the field of public health science communication.  The name of the company is simply: Public Health Science Communication.

The company  is still in its infancy and I’m not sure exactly where it is heading, but its exciting to have taken the leap. I have even completed af business start-up course (BIZ) offered by the Danish Union for Journalists and am in the process of ordering business cards!

I have already been busy teaching science communication to ph.d. students at University of Copenhagen; preparing a training on using social media in public health; helping a Danish patient organisation rewrite a scientific evaluation report; putting together meeting reports from international TB and HIV meetings and assisting university departments in communicating online who they are and what they do. I hope to expand the list and am enjoying the diversity of my work.

The revival of this blog will hopefully fit nicely with my new little consultancy company. Being almost a name sister, my thought is that Public Health Science Communication 2.0 can be a 2.0 side kick to my company, where I can continue to share thoughts and reflection also on topics that related to my assignments.

I look forward to your comments and am of course also happy to hear from you if there is anything you think I can be of help with. Just send an email to ninabjerglund@gmail.com.

See you soon in another blog post!

 

 

Awesome reading list on using social media in academia

A few weeks ago I returned to this blog with some reflections on a article about the use of social media by researchers in Denmark. I was disappointed to see that social media and academia in traditional journalist-based media is still portrayed mostly negatively.

In search of positive Danish experiences with using social media in academic work I called out to the Copenhagen Science Communication Facebook group (closed network). Being vacation time I didn’t manage to collect personal experiences with social media (I’ll give that a try later), but I was so fortunate to be made aware of an awesome reading list on using social media for research collaboration and public engagement. The list is complied by the Impact of Social Sciences Blog by LSE.

Some of the items in the reading list I have already touched upon on this blog (e.g. how Melissa Terras boosted the number of downloads of her scientific articles), but there are also some that are new to me and which add new dimensions to the use of social media in science communication.

Social media for sharing passion

A resource that I enjoyed reading is by Tim Hitchcook, a professor of Digital History at the University of Sussex. Tim Hitchcook doesn’t add anything revolutionary new or surprising to the arguments for using social media, but he phrases many of them very well. For example, I like how he describes social media as the perfect tool for researchers to share their passion for what they do:

The best (and most successful) academics are the ones who are so caught up in the importance of their work, so caught up with their simple passion for a subject, that they publicise it with every breadth. Twitter and blogs, and embarrassingly enthusiastic drunken conversations at parties, are not add-ons to academic research, but a simple reflection of the passion that underpins it.

And he goes on to pin point to two important aspects of using social media. First: Get started on integrating social media into your work from early on and gain by building-up your skills in communication with the public; and second, communicate about the research process itself – not just about the results, findings etc.:

A lot of early career scholars, in particular, worry that exposing their research too early, in too public a manner, will either open them to ridicule, or allow someone else to ‘steal’ their ideas.  But in my experience, the most successful early career humanists have already started building a form of public dialogue in to their academic practise – building an audience for their work, in the process of doing the work itself.

Finally, Tim Hitchcook addresses a concern which many researchers I talk to have about using social media. That it is time-consuming, and basically takes time away from doing other important things. Tim Hitchcook however points out that using social media may almost have the opposite effect:

The most impressive thing about these blogs (and the academic careers that generate them), is that there is no waste – what starts as a blog, ends as an academic output, and an output with a ready-made audience, eager to cite it.

I can only encourage you to read the blog post Twitter and blogs are not add-ons to academic research, but a simple reflection of the passion that underpins is in its entirety. And also to take a look at Tim Hitchcook’s own blog Historyonics.

 

 

 

Back!… to a battlefield for researchers?

A year (almost to the date) has passed since my last blog post. How did time pass so quickly?* And how in the world do I get started on this blog again? Following developments in public health science communication and social media for science communication mostly from the sideline, how will I know what’s the latest development? Am I up to speed to write about this topic?

The battlefield of Facebook

And then this weekend as I was flipping through the latest issue of the magazine of my Danish work association DJOEF, I came across this headline: “Forskerfejde på Facebook” (trans. Researcher fight on Facebook). A short article about Facebook as a place where researchers who dare to put themselves and their research out there are bullied and criticized and how social media is a big challenge for people working in academia. Although I agree that Facebook and other social media in some ways represent a challenge for the academic world, I was sad to see that we in Denmark apparently still are at level were social media is regarded only as a challenge and not as an opportunity for science and science communication.

The article is in Danish but the illustration of the article is universal and very much covers the focus of the article: Social media is a fora for heavy criticism, for fights, bullying, hitting each other in the head and the researcher who enters the world of Facebook need to have tough skin and be prepared to be hammered by both their peers and the public. The rules of the game of are different. Social media have altered the premises for how scientific results can be discussed, is a key message in the article.

Focusing on the negative sides

Although short, the article is supported by a few cases of scientists fighting over Facebook. There are even a couple of researchers calling out for keeping discussions to the already existing academic circles and journals. But is this really a telling picture of how social media is used and the consequences they have in the Danish academic world today. I know the answer is no. So why, do I ask myself, why did the journalist not bother to find a positive case story as well or why didn’t he broaden out the focus from just Denmark to also look at international experiences and trends in using social media? At least just make a small mention of it. Yes, conflicts and dramas make good stories, but I think it is misleading only to portray the battles and disagreement and argue that only researchers with tough skin can successfully use social media.

Compulsory science communication education

The article confirms me in the fact that we still have a long way to go in taking in social media in science communication in Denmark. Much progress has been made over the last year for sure, but still I feel a dominating skepticism towards using these open interactive media in science. As is rightly pointed out by a specialist in social media from University of Roskilde and quoted in the article, we can only expect social media to play a larger and larger role in the scientific debate. Being in agreement with this, I really hope that science communication education and training, including using social media in the research process, could be made compulsory for all university students. Social media have so much potential for science communication that it would be a shame if all researchers who do not feel their skin is ‘tough enough’ would refrain from using it.

I’m back

So with this sad reassurance that there is still a lot to do on science communication and social media and lots of experiences to harvest from the world, I am happy to take up this blog again and explore, comment, recommend, learn and share with all of you what I find.

.

*answer: a lovely little girl came in the way

A study and article not to be missed: Translating Research For Health Policy: Researchers’ Perceptions And Use Of Social Media

Had I got my arms free I’d write a long blog post with some reflections on this recently published study. But as at least one arm (often both) seems constantly occupied by this adorable two months old baby it os just too much of a challenge to sit by the computer and type long sentences.

But this article: Translating Research For Health Policy: Researchers’ Perceptions And Use Of Social Media is just too relevant for this blog to miss out on, so some quick one-hand typing is necessary. The study is also described in the ScienceDaily and basically highlights how health policy researchers lack confidence in social media for communicating scientific evidence. Most (especially the younger generation) believe that social media can be an effective way to communicate research findings but simply do not know how to use it and feel their academic peers and institutions do not value or respect it as much as traditional media and direct contact with policy makers. A super interesting finding which only highlights the need for integrating training in the use of social media (and communication in general) in the curriculum of health researchers and, would I argue, already from public health students enter university.

 

 

Pregnancy science communication

Public Health science communication has for the past years been my field of interest. I have studied it, I have taught it, I have networked over it. But have I actually been a user of it – like I was before I started studying it? Well, over the past nine months I actually have. At least one particular field within public health communication has had my special attention. Not for the sake of how it is communicated, but the actually public health knowledge. The field relates to pregnancy, which coincidentally for the past nine months (and still is as I write these words) have been a part of my life.

A circus of information

When you become pregnant not only do a lot of questions pop up in your head, but a lot of information relating to the health and wellbeing of yourself and the baby is communicated to you, whether you like it or not. Doctors, midwives, health authorities, friends, relatives – all have information to share with you. It can be quite a circus of information and you quickly discover that the science of pregnancy is full of science AND of urban legends, gossip, personal narratives and experiences, and culturally imbedded practices. The later become especially obvious when you as I choose to have a child with someone from a different country than your own and go through your pregnancy in neither’s of yours home countries.

To do or not to do?

As a public health professional I have of course been interested in doing what is best for the baby, and with an academic background I lean towards following advice which is based on scientific research rather than word of mouth or traditional practices in the country I happen to be. I quickly realised however that the two often get mixed up. Even in official guidance and pamphlets are you sometimes left to wonder what the advice is based on. In the wine country Spain for example you can drink alcohol (in moderation that is) while in Denmark your are advised not to. As my iron level dropped my German doctor advised me to start taking iron tablets and continue throughout the entire pregnancy. My midwife has, for reasons I have yet to understand, advised me to stop some weeks before my due date. The argumentation for all these different recommendations is very often: “It’s better for the baby”. But says who? Based on what? What is the evidence? All theses questions arise all the time and it seems like way to big a task to investigate the scientific background behind all of them. I was therefore happy to learn that I didn’t have to! Thus, my cousin told me about this book she had read a review of, which basically did what I felt like doing with every piece of advice and recommendation I was presented with: Learn about the basis or science behind the recommendation and based on that make my own decision on what to do and how to act.

Expecting better

Emily Oster, an associate professor of economics, decided, upon becoming pregnant, to test the facts of medical advice she was given by using the methodologies she knew best: an economist’s tools. The outcome of her struggles not only resulted in her making informed decisions right for her and her husband but also in the book “Expecting Better – why the conventional pregnancy wisdom is wrong and what you really need to know”. I have with joy been reading this book. Both for the content, but as I was reading it I realised also for its public health science communication value. Emily Oster manages to explain medical research without oversimplifying it and in a manner that most people without a health (or economist) background can understand. For a public health savvy person it is perhaps sometimes a bit too pedagogical and one can quickly become tired of having explained what a cross control study and a randomised trial is, but as public health professionals are not necessarily the target audience of this book this it not necessarily a bad thing. In addition, if one uses the book as a tool for looking up specific topics rather than reading it from A to Z the repetition is of course fine.

Facts and personal decision-making

One of the reasons I find the book to be an interesting example of public health science communication is that it manages to find a good balance between communicating scientific studies, findings and facts and at the same show how these can be used for decision-making – or in some cases are super difficult to drawn conclusions from and thus challenging to make decision upon. By sharing her own reflections and ultimate decisions with the reader, Emily Oster exemplifies that scientific findings and statistics take on a new meaning when they are to be applied to an individual person. Indirectly, it also illustrates how difficult it can be to make general recommendations when science doesn’t give clearcut answers (which is very often the case in public health research). Granted, at times you do become a bit tired of hearing about Penelope (Emily Oster’s daughter), but at the same time the book really wouldn’t have the same communicative value without it. Putting a human face and a name on science just makes it more relevant to read – at least when you are targeting a wider audience. And as mentioned it illustrates what happens to science when it moves from the laboratory, the statistical programme, the conference presentation etc. and meets real people.

Other reviews

“Expecting Better” was reviewed by Zoe Williams im the Guardian. I find her review of the book to be spot on, so instead of making more comments on the book, I’ll let you read her reflections, praise and critic.

The challenges of communicating Tuberculosis research and risks to decision-makers

Over the past year I have on a number of occasions been so fortunate to work for the World Health Organization’s Regional office for Europe (WHO/EURO) on various communication tasks related to Tuberculosis (TB).

Although we in Europe tend to worry mostly about non-communicable diseases and many perceive infectious diseases as something we have pretty much under control, Tuberculosis is actually a big problem in many countries of the region. Especially the incidence of Multi-Drug Resistant TB (MDR-TB) and Extensively Drug Resistant TB (XDR-TB) is worrying – to me actually a bit frightening. Incidences of MDR-TB and XDR-TB in Europe are the highest in the world, and do not only present a problem to the countries mostly affected (se figure) but in a globalized world with lots of mobility also a growing problem in the rest of the region. And as the name implies, treating (and thus controlling) the disease is becoming increasingly difficult as our current range of medicine is no longer proving effective.

Tuberculosis as a Public Health Risk Communication example

So why bring up this issue on a blog focused on Public Health Science Communication? The answer is simple: Because it is a good example of the complexity and challenges of communicating public health science to divers audiences. Next week I will as mentioned earlier be giving a short lecture on public health risk communication to a group of public health students at University of Copenhagen, and I have been asked to try to integrate some ‘practical experiences’ with risk communication. My plan is to use tuberculosis as an example. Unfortunately, I can’t bring many solutions to the challenges, but my aim is to draw attention to some real life, practical obstacles to convert scientific public health knowledge to action.

The big challenge: Reaching decision makers!

In my assignments for WHO I have not worked specifically with risk communication, but having attended several meetings and contributed to a number of WHO reports I have gained an insight into the many challenges in TB control, the people involved and been struck by TB experts’ difficulties in communicating what science deems necessary to control the disease, including the risks of not acting or acting incorrectly, to the people responsible for making key decisions and allocating resources to it.

As with any other disease the findings and outcomes of TB-related research has to reach many different audiences: TB-patients, relatives of TB-patients, the general public, the media, health care workers, nurses, medical doctors, laboratory technicians, health care planners, policy makers, politicians etc. What is necessary and relevant to communicate differs of course depending on who you are trying to reach and the mechanisms to reach them are naturally also different.

I will in this blog post not reflect too much on communicating risks to patients and relatives to TB patients nor the general public, but draw attention to the challenges which TB experts face in communicating scientific findings, risks and arguments to public health decision-makers – ranging from senior doctors, hospital managers to politicians. This is an area I feel is often overlooked when talking about public health science and risk communication and definitely a challenge for TB-control in Europe. There are many books, courses, guidelines etc. on how to reach individuals and the general public, but it is at least my impression that literature and discussion on how to reach decision-makers is much more limited or at least difficult to find.

Some examples

For almost all the TB-related meetings organized by WHO, which I have attended the problem of getting messages and identified risks through to the decision-makers has been brought up. Just a few examples:

• Laboratory and biomolecular specialists know what is needed in terms of laboratory tests, which are the most efficient (also in term of costs) and how for example testing TB strains for their susceptibility to different drugs is essential in controlling TB and the risks that arise from not doing so. They know what resources are needed in terms of staff, training and maintenance of equipment. Their problem: Explaining the highly complicated (even to me) techniques, their use of very technical language and abbreviations, their lack of communication training in general and risk communication specifically, their lack of direct access to communicate to and with decision makers. The result: under-prioritization of the laboratory needs in TB programmes and/or half solutions without proper maintenance of machines, continued training of staff etc. All contributing to increased risk of spreading TB – especially X/MDR-TB.

• Researchers in TB, Heads of national TB programmes, international advisory organisations etc. know and have evidence for the importance of moving towards out-patient care of TB patients rather than relying on placing them in hospitals for the duration of their treatment (which can be move than 12 months). Not only for the sake of the individual patient but also for the public in general. Their problem: Communicating this knowledge convincingly to policy-makers and senior doctors is difficult in an Eastern European context where the old ways of the Soviet times, where hospital treatment was the preferred option, are still present. There seems to be a lack of opportunities or ideas on how to communicate with decision-makers and a fear that advocating for fewer hospital beds and more outpatient care will only lead to fewer resources for TB. In addition, they are in many countries up against stigma towards TB patients and the fact that TB often affects people with low social status (migrants and prisoners) and therefore not very attractive for politicians to spend time on. Form how I see it the experts lacks skills in communicating their knowledge effectively, partly due to lack of understanding of the incentives of decision-makers to go into this area. The result: Reluctance to speak up. Non-effective communication and status-quo for TB-patients’ treatment and care which again only risks to fuel the epidemic.

• Researchers in TB, Heads of national TB programmes, international advisory organizations etc. know the importance of involving civil society in TB control and especially in explaining risk, risk preventive strategies etc. Their problem: difficulties in getting messages and knowledge across to civil society organization (if they exist), and find a common language to communicate in. Trouble gaining political support for the establishment of civil society organization and, if these already exist, lack of success in coordinating messages and missions. The result: Missed opportunities of being a joint voice that together can work to convince decision-makers to react to the risks of a more widely spread TB epidemic and have them make the right decisions. Waisted resources due to uncoordinated efforts
  

Acknowledging the role of science communication

The above examples are just a few of the communication related problems I have encountered and they may to some extend be specific to the European Region. The trouble is that they are in my experience actually often not articulated as communication problems, but rather as problems of securing funding, getting political support, engaging civil society, old-fashioned doctors etc. But from my perspective a lot of this really has to do with a lack of ability to communicate public health research, including public health risks to decision-makers.

So how do we deal with this? Well first of all, I guess it is a matter of acknowledging that communication is essential to convert scientific knowledge to actual action – also in TB control. It’s difficult to pursued decision-makers of the importance of paying attention to the TB situation and react accordingly, but there is a need to look into how it can be improved. Improved science and risk communication does in no way solve the problem on its own, but I do believe that a better understanding of how TB risks can be communicated, and an understanding of the position and incentives of the audiences (in this case decision-makers) can contribute a great deal. The experts need to been given some training and insights into science communication, so that can contribute to the discussions themselves – it is not enough to just hire a bunch of communication people to take care of it. Science communication theories and research have a lot to offer. The link just has to made and prioritized already from future experts enter into the academic training in universities etc.

Online course in Public Health Emergency Risk Communication

In just a few weeks I’ll be teaching a class on Public Health Risk Communication, as part of the Public Health Science Communication course at University of Copenhagen. Despite the topic being big enough to cover a whole course in its own, it will with 90 minutes available only be possible to give a brief introduction to Risk Communication and public health. To compensate a little for this I have therefore been searching for possibilities for further studying, which I could recommend to the students.

Online course: Emergency Risk Communication

One of my findings is an online course in Emergency Risk Communication offered by the Northwest Center for Public Health Practice, University of Washington. It is free and takes only an estimated 2,5 hours (thus it is also mainly an introduction to the topic). I decided to take the course yesterday before adding it to my list of “further readings and materials in Public Health Risk Communication”.

Background information about the course

The course is very practice-oriented and less theoretical. The developers’ approach to the course and described target audience is that “if you work in public health, during a crisis or emergency, you will be likely to become a risk communicator, even if your job description does not include public information or media relations”. Therefore the course’s main objective is to teach how to plan for an emergency, create effective messages, and interact with the media and community in times of crisis. This is clearly illustrated in the below learning objectives:

After completing this course, you should be able to:

• List some common reactions exhibited by the public during public health emergencies
• Identify some effective communication strategies that can be used during public health emergencies
• Communicate with the news media more effectively during public health emergencies
• Work with the community more effectively during periods of heightened emotion
• Participate in planning processes that can help your organization be better prepared for communicating during an emergency

A well crafted and structured course

All in all I found the course quite useful and very well put together. I felt it gave me a good basic insight into some of the main components of Emergency Risk Communication. It took me about 2 hours to finish, but it has materials for extensively further studying. Throughout the different modules it is full of links to guidelines, templates, check lists, background literature, resource websites etc. useful in developing an emergency risk communication plan or strategy. All the links are also collected in an easily accessible Toolkit, which makes the course even more hands-on-oriented and user-friendly.

Another great aspect of the course is that is makes use of many real life examples and includes for example interviews with public health professionals who suddenly found themselves involved in emergency risk communication. You are presented with a situation similar to what they experienced and is asked what actions you would take. Afterwards you are then presented with their actions and the outcome of that. This works very well and helps in keeping one’s interest and attention. The course also makes sure to use many different cases of public health emergencies covering all from outbreak of infectious diseases, food safety issues, environmental health risk, to natural and man-made disasters. Again, great to keep one’s attention and making it relevant to people working in many fields of public health.

Social media and Emergency Risk Communication

A very positive aspect of the course was, seen from my perspective, that social media and its role in emergency risk communication is given much attention. Many examples of its use is presented and it is consistently mentioned throughout the different modules of the course. Apart from being of course a super important aspect to include it also gives you a feeling of the course being up-to-date.

In conclusion, it’s definitely a course worth spending 2,5 hours on. As said it is not very theoretical or academic oriented, but it has great references if one feels like digging into more of that, and is relevant for students as well as public health professionals proned to get involved in public health emergencies in one way or the other. You get a nice little diploma when passing the final assessment test and can, if relevant also apply for official credits for the course.

Conference on Communication, Medicine and Ethics (COMET) in Switzerland

As member of the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) I receive a monthly newsletter with relevant Public Health news from the region. I have previously criticized EUPHA for their lack of focus on public health communication (see blog post “European Public Health Association and the missing communication category”).

I maintain my critic, but must also congratulate them when public health communication does sneak its way into for example their newsletter.

Thus, in the January 2014 newsletter under Upcoming Courses and Conferences attention is made to the Conference on Communication, Medicine and Ethics (COMET), which will take place in Lugano, Switzerland 26-28 June 2014. The conference aims to bring together communication researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds, ranging from healthcare specialities to the human and social sciences.

The first Conference on Communication, Medicine and Ethics (COMET) was hosted by the Health Communication Research Centre at Cardiff University, UK in 2003 and was attended by more than 200 participants from 20 countries. Based on its success COMET has now established itself as an annual interdisciplinary, international event.

COMET is described as using a problem-oriented approach, and places special emphasis on the dissemination of high quality research in interpersonal, mass communication, and practical ethics which is directly relevant to healthcare practitioners.

The 2014 conference will focus especially on the dissemination of ongoing research in Doctor-Patient communication studies, health communication in the media, as well as practical ethics which engages directly with healthcare practitioners. Looking at the list of proposed topics and keynote speakers, it does seem like especially the doctor-patient communication will be given much attention, but I’m happy to note that themes like “Communicating Risk and Uncertainty”; ” Interprofessional Communication and Hospital Management Systems” and “Media and Health Communication” also figures on the list.

Assessing myself unlikely to attend, I do hope that the conference will set up a hashtag for Twitter and encourage social media activity during the conference, so that a broad audience (including me) can be reached.

The organisers of the conference accepted proposals for either panels or paper presentations (oral or poster) within the main themes up until 31st January 2014, so unfortunately the deadline has been passed, but I look forward to seeing the complete programme once it becomes available.