Why was interest in health communication originally limited in the healthcare arena?

Check out the new look and enjoy easier access to your favorite features

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.

Balog-Way DHP, McComas KA. Covid-19: reflections on trust, tradeoffs, and preparedness. J Risk Res. 2020;23(7–8):838–48.
Google Scholar
McCartney M, Sullivan F, Heneghan C. Information and rational decision-making: explanations to patients and citizens about personal risk of Covid-19. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2020;26:143.
Google Scholar
de Campos-Rudinsky TC, Undurraga E. Public health decisions in the Covid-19 pandemic require more than ‘follow the science.’ J Med Ethics. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107134.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Fischhoff B. The Covid communication breakdown. In: Foreign Affairs. 2021.
Hyland K, Jiang F. The Covid infodemic: competition and the hyping of virus research. Int J Corpus Linguist. 2021;26:444.
Google Scholar
Pak A, McBryde E, Adegboye OA. Does high public trust amplify compliance with stringent Covid-19 government health guidelines? A multi-country analysis using data from 102,627 individuals. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2021;14:293–302.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Oxman AD, Glenton C, Flottorp S, Lewin S, Rosenbaum S, Fretheim A. Development of a checklist for people communicating evidence-based information about the effects of healthcare interventions: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open. 2020;10(7):e036348.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Veit W, Brown R, Earp BD. In science we trust? Being honest about the limits of medical research during Covid-19. Am J Bioeth. 2021;21(1):22–4.
PubMed Google Scholar
van der Bles AM, van der Linden S, Freeman ALJ, Spiegelhalter DJ. The effects of communicating uncertainty on public trust in facts and numbers. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117(14):7672–83.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Schneider CR, Freeman ALJ, Spiegelhalter D, van der Linden S. The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about Covid-19: two randomised controlled trials. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0259048.

CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Dawson A. Information, choice and the ends of health promotion. Monash Bioeth Rev. 2014;32(1–2):106–20.
PubMed Google Scholar
Tengland PA. Behavior change or empowerment: on the ethics of health-promotion goals. Health Care Anal. 2016;24(1):24–46.
PubMed Google Scholar
Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L. “Spin” in published biomedical literature: a methodological systematic review. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(9):e2002173.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, Marroun I, Charles P, Mantz J, Ravaud P. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001308.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, Williams A, Venetis CA, Davies A, Ogden J, Whelan L, Hughes B, Dalton B, et al. The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ. 2014;349:g7015.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Oxman M, Larun L, Gaxiola GP, Alsaid D, Qasim A, Rose CJ, Bischoff K, Oxman AD. Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: systematic review and meta-analyses. F10000Res. 2021;10:433.
CAS Google Scholar
Berndt ER. To inform or persuade? Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(4):325–8.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Rossi J, Yudell M. The use of persuasion in public health communication: an ethical critique. Public Health Ethics. 2012;5(2):192–205.
Google Scholar
European Parliament and Council. Directive 2005/29/EC: Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Brussels: Official Journal of the European Union; 2005.
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The blue guide: advertising and promotion of medicines in the UK. 3rd ed. London: Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; 2020.
Google Scholar
Lenzer J. Why aren’t the US Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration speaking with one voice on flu? BMJ. 2015;350:h658.
PubMed Google Scholar
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(8):516–27.
PubMed Google Scholar
Akl EA, Oxman AD, Herrin J, Vist GE, Terrenato I, Sperati F, Costiniuk C, Blank D, Schunemann H. Using alternative statistical formats for presenting risks and risk reductions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;3:CD006776.
Google Scholar
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The effectiveness of a primer to help people understand risk: two randomized trials in distinct populations. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(4):256–65.
PubMed Google Scholar
Witte K, Allen M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27(5):591–615.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Zhu M, Yang Y, Hsee CK. The mere urgency effect. J Consum Res. 2018;45(3):673–90.
Google Scholar
Chen M, Bell RA. A meta-analysis of the impact of point of view on narrative processing and persuasion in health messaging. Psychol Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2021.1894331.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Shen F, Sheer VC, Li R. Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: a meta-analysis. J Advertising. 2015;44(2):105–13.
Google Scholar
Nadarevic L, Reber R, Helmecke AJ, Köse D. Perceived truth of statements and simulated social media postings: an experimental investigation of source credibility, repeated exposure, and presentation format. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2020;5(1):56.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Alonso-Coello P, Schunemann HJ, Moberg J, Brignardello-Petersen R, Akl EA, Davoli M, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Rada G, Rosenbaum S, et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ. 2016;353:i2016.
PubMed Google Scholar
Di Pietrantonj C, Rivetti A, Marchione P, Debalini MG, Demicheli V. Vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004407.pub4.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Ames HMR, Glenton C, Lewin S. Parents’ and informal caregivers’ views and experiences of communication about routine childhood vaccination: a synthesis of qualitative evidence. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011787.pub2.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hofmann B. Do women receive enough information to make informed choices about breast cancer screening? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2020. https://doi.org/10.4045/tidsskr.19.0568.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Barby JS. Between reason and coercion: ethically permissible influence in health care and health policy contexts. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2012;22(4):345–66.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019.
Google Scholar
Guttman N, Lev E. Ethical Issues in Covid-19 communication to mitigate the pandemic: dilemmas and practical implications. Health Commun. 2021;36(1):116–23.
PubMed Google Scholar
Nestle M. Food politics: how the food industry influences nutrition and health, vol. 3. Berkeley: Univ of California Press; 2013.
Google Scholar
Kahneman D. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2017.
Google Scholar
O’Hara L, Taylor J, Barnes M. The extent to which the public health “war on obesity” reflects the ethical values and principles of critical health promotion: a multimedia critical discourse analysis. Health Promot J Austr. 2015;26(3):246–54.
PubMed Google Scholar
Peinado S, Treiman K, Uhrig JD, Taylor JC, Stryker JE. Effectively communicating about HIV and other health disparities: findings from a literature review and future directions. Front Commun. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.539174.
Article Google Scholar
Chewning B, Bylund CL, Shah B, Arora NK, Gueguen JA, Makoul G. Patient preferences for shared decisions: a systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86(1):9–18.
PubMed Google Scholar
Theo Raynor DK, Blackwell K, Middleton W. What do writers need to know about user testing? Medical Writ. 2015;24(4):215–8.
Google Scholar
Wakefield MA, Loken B, Hornik RC. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. Lancet. 2010;376(9748):1261–71.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. The case for letting information speak for itself. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;4(2):76–9.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Palmer S, Jansen A, Leitmeyer K, Murdoch H, Forland F. Evidence-Based Medicine applied to the control of communicable disease incidents when evidence is scarce and the time is limited. Euro Surveill. 2013. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES2013.18.25.20507.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Fretheim A, Brurberg KG, Forland F. Rapid reviews for rapid decision-making during the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic, Norway, 2020. Euro Surveill. 2020. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.19.2000687.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
World Health Organization. Communicating risk in public health emergencies: a WHO guideline for emergency risk communication (ERC) policy and practice. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
Google Scholar
Bretthauer M, Helsingen LM, Løberg M, Kalager M, Guyatt G. Evidence and precaution for legal health interventions: learning from the Covid-19 pandemic. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(10):1456–7.
PubMed Google Scholar
Aronson JK, Barends E, Boruch R, Brennan M, Chalmers I, Chislett J, Cunliffe-Jones P, Dahlgren A, Gaarder M, Haines A, et al. Key concepts for making informed choices. Nature. 2019;572(7769):303–6.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Roozenbeek J, Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, van der Bles AM, van der Linden S. Susceptibility to misinformation about Covid-19 around the world. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7(10):201199.
CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Dahlgren A, Furuseth-Olsen K, Rose CJ, Oxman AD. The Norwegian public’s ability to assess treatment claims: results of a cross-sectional study of critical health literacy. F1000Research. 2021. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.21902.2.
Article Google Scholar
Andrews JC, Schunemann HJ, Oxman AD, Pottie K, Meerpohl JJ, Coello PA, Rind D, Montori VM, Brito JP, Norris S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation’s direction and strength. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(7):726–35.
PubMed Google Scholar
Agoritsas T, Merglen A, Heen AF, Kristiansen A, Neumann I, Brito JP, Brignardello-Petersen R, Alexander PE, Rind DM, Vandvik PO, et al. UpToDate adherence to GRADE criteria for strong recommendations: an analytical survey. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e018593.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Alexander PE, Brito JP, Neumann I, Gionfriddo MR, Bero L, Djulbegovic B, Stoltzfus R, Montori VM, Norris SL, Schünemann HJ, et al. World Health Organization strong recommendations based on low-quality evidence (study quality) are frequent and often inconsistent with GRADE guidance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;72:98–106.
PubMed Google Scholar
Parry LJ, Asenbaum H, Ercan SA. Democracy in flux: a systemic view on the impact of Covid-19. Transform Gov: People Process Policy; 2020;15(2):197–205.
Lacelle-Webster A, Landry J, Smith AMD. Citizen voice in the pandemic response: democratic innovations from around the world. In: Smith G, Hughes T, Adams L, Obijiaku C, editors. Democracy in a Pandemic. London: University of Westminster Press; 2021.
Google Scholar
Scheinerman N, McCoy M. What does it mean to engage the public in the response to Covid-19? BMJ. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1207.
Norheim OF, Abi-Rached JM, Bright LK, Bærøe K, Ferraz OLM, Gloppen S, Voorhoeve A. Difficult trade-offs in response to COVID-19: the case for open and inclusive decision making. Nat Med. 2021;27(1):10–3.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Fung A. Is democracy too much trouble in a pandemic? In: Smith G, Hughes T, Adams L, Obijiaku C, editors. Democracy in a Pandemic. London: University of Westminster Press; 2021.
Google Scholar
Weir E, Schabas R, Wilson K, Mackie C. A Canadian framework for applying the precautionary principle to public health issues. Canad J Public Health. 2010;101(5):396–8.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hermerén G. The principle of proportionality revisited: interpretations and applications. Med Health Care Philos. 2012;15(4):373–82.
PubMed Google Scholar

Page 2

From: Health communication in and out of public health emergencies: to persuade or to inform?

Factors that can affect a decision	Spin to influence people to behave in a desired way
The effects of behaving in the desired way compared to other options	Emphasize or exaggerate the benefits of behaving in the desired way
Ignore or downplay the harms or undesirable effects of behaving in the desired way
Ignore or downplay uncertainty about the benefits, and emphasize or exaggerate uncertainty about the harms
Neglect to consider or point out that people may weigh desirable and undesirable outcomes differently
Assume or imply that the desirable effects far outweigh the undesirable effects
Costs of behaving in the desired way compared to other options	Ignore or downplay the costs and emphasize or exaggerate the savings of behaving in the desired way
Ignore or downplay uncertainty about the savings and emphasize or exaggerate uncertainty about the costs
Ignore, assume or imply the intervention is cost-effective, and ignore uncertainty
Alternatives to the desired option	Misinform or leave out information about relevant alternatives