Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Risk Communication in the Age of COVID-19

Written By

Isabell Koinig

Submitted: 21 December 2020 Reviewed: 03 February 2021 Published: 02 March 2021

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.96390

From the Edited Volume

Risk Management

Edited by Muddassar Sarfraz and Larisa Ivascu

Chapter metrics overview

712 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Literature describes a pandemic as a unique form of health crisis, which requires intensive communicative efforts. The government is a key actor in such situations for it is not only particularly trusted to manage a crisis, but also can obtain compliance on part of the affected population. Scholars agree that health messages are important tools to create awareness for the (health) threat. Particularly during health emergencies, information on which preventive measures should be taken is most valuable. With measures often concerning “disruptive actions”, messages must be carefully crafted to counteract negative emotions and controversial arguments. The present chapter presents a checklist for successful campaign design in health risk situations by paying specific attention to COVID-19. To this end, we conduct an extensive literature review and highlight how scientific information should be presented, as well as which message appeals and design features should be utilized to provide the population with targeted and timely information. This is essential against decreasing health literacy rates, which have to be considered in the message design process. To illustrate our case, we will refer to selected national health campaigns which were successfully utilized to manage the risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter will conclude with some limitations and directions for future research.


  • health risk communication
  • COVID-19
  • health campaigns
  • health message design
  • literature review

1. Introduction

A pandemic presents a special kind of health crisis that requires “collective responsibility” together with changes in communication techniques ([1], p. 515). Previous research has confirmed that communication during a health crisis is crucial [2] in order to create awareness for the existence of a health threat [3, 4]. Hence, health risk messages disseminated during the crisis should be both instructing and adjusting, informing the public of which precautionary measures to take to reduce physical harm and the virus from spreading, while also providing individuals with guidance as to how to deal with the psychological threats of the crisis [5].

In the event of a pandemic, the government becomes a key actor in managing the (health) crisis [6, 7]. Conditioned by high degrees of trust, messages distributed on part of the government can drive the general population to comply with its recommended actions [8, 9, 10, 11]. This is the case, since health messages for which the government is the identified source are perceived as both credible and relevant [7, 12], for individuals are convinced that the government can control the crisis [13]. This is in line with previous research, which suggests that controllability and responsibility for the health threat influence the public’s risk perceptions and, consequently, responses to these risks [14].

The primary aim of this chapter is to present some guidelines for effective health risk message design, drawing input from established crisis communication literature in general and some recent studies on COVID-19 risk communication in particular. To this end, recommendations regarding message presentation and design will be presented, before limitations and directions for future research are addressed.


2. Communicating during a health crises

Pandemics qualify as a form of health crisis [1]. As crises present situations for which individuals are neither prepared nor possess knowledge of how to deal with the uncertain circumstances [15], they actively seek support and guidance [16, 17]. In order to mobilize the affected public as a partner [18, 19], individuals’ need for information must be satisfied. Useful information is usually based on scientific facts. Following the Office and Science and Technology [20], science communication comprises all communication activities between different stakeholder groups, and, as in the case of a health crisis, takes place between “the government and the public”. In line with Burns et al. [21], one of the many objectives of science communication is to raise awareness for and create familiarity with new aspects of science. Consisting of three separate processes – i.e. communication, consultation and participation [22] – science communication needs to be designed strategically to fill existing (knowledge) gaps and present information in an appealing manner [23]. Only this way, the public’s understanding of science can be assured [21]1.

Media messages afford individuals with instruction and, thus, present respondents’ primary sources of information in crises [26, 27, 28]. Message credibility and trust is elevated, if the government is the identified source [12, 29], highlighting its central role in the crisis management process [6, 7]. On the one hand, it can help sensitize people for the risks associated with the crisis and, on the other hand, encourage them to adopt preventive measures [30]. For this reason, governmental officials are advised to invest in “well-coordinated health communications” to assist individuals in managing their daily lives in times of upheaval [31]. Previous studies have investigated how the public responds to a government’s overall health risk communication, for instance during the avian influenza [12], SARS [32], or Ebola [33]. Findings confirm that the government is perceived to be in the position to mitigate potential health risks [13].

In the event of a crisis, governments are advised to engage in intensified communication [9, 10]. In order to build community trust and engagement, communication must be open and transparent, as well as scientifically based in order to facilitate the public’s preparedness to deal with the health threat [9, 16, 34]. This call seems to be expressive of recent social developments towards a knowledge or information society [35]. Thereby, knowledge (re)production centers on documented scientific knowledge (e.g., scientific findings), which no longer solely has its origin in natural sciences but is also based on social sciences [29]. Moreover, this kind of knowledge is increasingly discussed in the media. While science communication is concerned with raising awareness for and creating familiarity with new aspects of science (as part of a “Public Understanding of Science” and “Public Awareness of Science”, [24, 25]), messages disseminated during any (health) crisis need to be designed strategically to present information in an appealing manner in order to draw respondents to (scientific) message content [21].


3. Health campaigns in crisis situations

Effective risk communication is a requirement in case of health emergencies and crises [2] and can assist the public in managing the crisis [36]. Health crises, including epidemics and pandemics, do not present an exception to this trend. For this reason, governments throughout the world heavily depend on health campaigns, described as “a systematic effort to change health behaviors (or attitudes and beliefs about health and/or social and environmental conditions that mediate health behaviors) within a target population of people who are at risk for a health problem or problems” [37]. Health messages by the government are also known as Public Service Announcements (PSAs, [38]). Contrary to traditional advertising messages, these materials set out to change individual behaviors. For this reason, they have been commonly used in health crises [39].

With PSAs appealing to individuals to change their behaviors and instructing them on how to achieve these proposed behavioral changes, they are in line with health campaigns’ three communicative objectives: awareness, instruction or persuasion [37, 40]. In case of a health crisis, health campaigns primarily intend to raise awareness for the severity of the threat amongst the affected population and offer instruction to individuals on how to utilize self-protective measures [41, 42]. As such, PSAs appeal to individuals’ self-efficacy [16, 43, 44]. For instance, health messages spread during the H1N1 influenza emphasized the need to take up hygiene measures, such as “hand washing, sanitizer use, covering of coughs and sneezes, and staying at home” ([16]: p. 5). Similar message content was also employed as part of national COVID-19 health campaigns.

Albeit different campaign themes exist, amongst them community building [16], messages typically center on risk reduction strategies [5, 30]. Particularly during health emergencies, information on which preventive measures should be taken is valuable [45]. These measures, for instance, could be nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), which are nation-wide actions proposed by the government to resolve the health crisis [31]. NPIs are useful in controlling the pandemic and are, thus, often labeled “community mitigation strategies”. With measures often concerning “disruptive actions” ([44], p. S2), individuals are forced to reconfigure their daily lives and routines [46]. For this reason, health risk messages must be carefully designed to prevent controversial arguments and negative emotions from surfacing [19, 47, 48].

Campaigns advocating NPIs rely on media messages to reach diverse publics in crisis situations [49]. While an increasing amount of research is available on how health messages are used to create awareness amongst the population during risk situations [33, 50, 51, 52, 53]. In this chapter we review articles pertaining to health risk message design and focus on the special case of pandemics and emerging infectious diseases [8].


4. Method

The purpose of this paper is to present the cumulated results of an excessive literature review, looking at propositions for and examples of health risk messages disseminated during previous epidemics and pandemics, as well as during COVID-19. Hence, this review will only include articles from the field of risk communication and health communication which were released between 2000 and 2020, even though parallels to messages addressing ongoing pandemics, such as HIV/AIDS and Cholera, can be found.

We used keywords such as risk, health risk, risk communication, health communication, epidemic, pandemic and a combination thereof to compose our sample. With this scope in mind, we conducted a search using national library databases. We covered the major journals in strategic communication, risk communication, and health communication, such as The Journal of Risk Research, Environmental Research, The Journal of Business Research, The Journal of Public Relations Research, Public Relations Review, The European Journal of Communication, Public Health, Health Communication, The Journal of Health Communication, Health Education and Behavior, The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, The Journal of Communication in Healthcare, The Journal of Health Management, The American Journal of Public Health, The Journal of Urban Health and Public Understanding of Science. From these sources, we limited our selection to articles dealing with any type of health crisis, including Zika, Ebola, H1N1, the avian influenza and COVID-19. We screened them to a list of 115 pertinent references on health risk communication and message design, which constituted our sample.

With the above considerations we have now summed up some recommendations for designing health risk messages. For government officials, it is now of great interest to learn more about how health risk messages can be designed to benefit not only their own agenda, but also whole populations affected by crisis situations. After reviewing relevant (and recent) literature, it becomes obvious that scholars have devoted their research to studying communication during crisis situations in detail. In the following, several recommendations for designing and drafting health risk messages will be presented.


5. Recommendations for designing health risk messages

5.1 Be open and transparent

The availability of timely and transparent information allows the public to derive at a realistic assessment of the health threat [3, 4, 54]. Building on previous research, messages disseminated in times of disruption should “[e]mphasize the rationale and importance of adherence to public health measures that some people may consider intrusive (e.g., quarantine)” (US Department of Health and Human Services 2008). Providing a solid reasoning is seen as paramount, given that in recent years, individuals trust in the validity of scientific findings has decreased considerably [55]. Hence, PSAs must address the necessity for specific crisis mitigation strategies and actions.

5.2 Focus on relevant message content

Experts have determined that ensuring public access to information – and thus engaging in a process of constant communication – is seen as essential in crisis situations [56]. Thereby, different forms of information need to be distinguished: instructing information, preventive information, and reactive information [57]. Instructing information covers three areas: information on the pandemic, the public’s primary needs, and precautionary measures [57]. Through preventive information, public opinion regarding the crisis is sensitized, whilst through reactive information, the affected population is informed about the crisis progression, and a potential panic and the spread of rumors can be prevented [1]. For instance, public health campaigns in Austria, Australia and the U.S. (New York) highlighted the necessity to either stay at home, socially distance or wear masks. For instance, the example inFigure 1emphasizes the necessity to cut back on visits from grandparents or social distancing.

Figure 1.

Austrian PSAs advising grandparents to refrain from visiting their grandchildren (left) and social distancing (right). (Source:

5.3 Present information consistently and “straight to the point”

In the process of encouraging individuals to follow the proposed preventive actions [58, 59, 60], information should be presented in a straight-forward manner [16] and in “one voice”. Moreover, messages should use simple language [61], and be consistent in terms of message content, as inconsistency can lead to confusion and undesired health outcomes: “A well-crafted national message [has] the potential to build unity around the goal of defeating the virus through behavior change, preferably with clear, unambiguous recommendations of what actions to take” ([61], 1736). For example, when the crisis first surfaced, the Austrian government stressed the importance of staying home; after the first lockdown, when social distancing was in order, the campaign commonly referenced the baby elephant as a metaphor to remind individuals to keep their distance (of 1.5 m; seeFigure 2).

Figure 2.

Austrian PSAs featuring the baby elephant. (Source:

5.4 Appeal to individuals’ self-efficacy

According to Fishbein and Ajzen [62], effective communication should stress which behaviors have to be changed, further providing the public with clear instruction as to how this change can be obtained [3]. Therefore, message should appeal to individuals’ self-efficacy [63, 64]. Self-efficacy is activated if identification with message content is high [43, 44]. Clear communication can boost individual self-efficacy and help mitigate the risks associated with the health threat [61]. If individuals feel empowered, this can then improve the relationship between the public and the government lastingly [10]. Governments throughout the world familiarized individuals with how they could contribute to preventing the virus from spreading, e.g. through personal hygiene, reducing their social contacts, or self-isolating. Examples of Australian campaign resources are presented inFigure 3.

Figure 3.

Australian PSAs presenting risk mitigation strategies. (Source:

5.5 Align message content with social norms

As individual behavior is influenced by social norms, i.e. how people in one’s immediate environment react [65], health communication messages should promote these norms [29, 39], which can induce behavioral change. Besides the relevance of collective norms2 [67], norms that require personal investment (e.g., social distancing, personal hygiene) are presumed to predict behavioral intentions even more strongly [68]. Apart from stressing individual benefits, governments also highlighted how individual actions would contribute to the overall social good (e.g., “Let’s be COVIDSAFE together” in Australia or “Because your mask doesn’t protect you. It protects me” as part of the Mask Up America Campaign; seeFigure 4).

Figure 4.

Prosocial Appeal as part of #MaskUpAmerica. (Source:

5.6 Use prosocial appeals

The risks associated with any crisis have been renowned to elicit negative emotions in individuals [69], further influencing their risk perceptions [70, 71, 72]. Therefore, the negative emotions associated with the pandemic should be counterbalanced with positive emotional appeals [29, 73]. This, for instance, can be achieved through “prosocial motivation” or a collective orientation, in the course of which the positive impact of a certain behavior on the community elicits hope in recipients [74, 75]. Likewise, higher intentions to comply with proposed behaviors can be achieved if prosocial appeals are used [76]. In addition to the examples mentioned above, also the Austrian and German government emphasized the need for collective action (e.g. Austria’s Schau auf Dich, Schauf auf Mich campaign and Germany’s #besonderehelden video campaign; seeFigure 5).

Figure 5.

Austrian PSAs emphasizing prosocial and collective action, such as staying at home if feeling unwell (left) and shopping for at risk groups (right). (Source:

5.7 Emphasize the necessity of proposed measures

Besides stressing the necessity for engaging in selected NPIs, messages also must point out why it is essential to do so [3, 77]. This builds upon previous research, which has demonstrated that increased efficacy levels are reliable in predicting individual behavior [78]. One potential way, for instance, could be to increase the perceived relevance of message content or the similarity to the source, which have proven successful in mitigating negative message consequences [79, 80, 81], e.g., the spread of the virus.

5.8 Evoke positive emotions

Individuals’ risk perceptions usually incorporate emotional aspects [53] that have been found to drive individuals to take up protective behaviors in crisis situations [82, 83, 84]. Hence, the use of (positive) emotion has been found to be conducive to behavioral change [85], also in times of crisis, where emotions have been found to drive (health) risk message reception, e.g., by impacting individuals’ willingness and motivation to take up precautionary measures (e.g., [86, 87, 88, 89]). Positive emotions can be evoked, for instance, by presenting individuals as heroes, as it is the case in both the German public health campaign and the New York #maskupamerica campaign (seeFigure 6).

Figure 6.

#MaskUpAmerica featuring Everyday Heroes. (Source:

5.9 Emotionalize message content

While some audiences seek out facts and scientific information, others are more drawn to emotional and personalized message content [37]. Thereby, message appeals describe promotional cues that are used to drive both recipients’ interest and attention [90]. While informative appeals utilize rational arguments in a matter-of-fact presentation [91], emotional appeals, on the other hand, are based on images or videos to facilitate comprehension amongst message recipients [92]. Emotional appeals allow organizations to gain support from the affected public in times of crisis [93, 94, 95], and researchers have identified a number of advantages associated with the use of an emotional message presentation, such as an increased “attention to messages, recall, positive attitudes, and compliance to recommended behaviors” ([37]: p. 249). In this context, stories or personal recounts are recommended, and have been employed in numerous countries, such as Austria, the U.S. and Germany.

5.10 Employ strong visuals

Health risk communication’s reliance on an emotional (visual) presentation might stem from the fact that visuals drive risk perceptions more than factual information [96, 97]. In case of strong emotional reactions, individuals’ likelihood to ignore factual information is increased [98, 99]. Therefore, the use of pictures is recommended and can increase the likelihood of a message receiving fixation [100]. For example, the Austrian government decided to feature individuals in their domestic environments when encouraging them to stay at home (seeFigure 7).

Figure 7.

Austrian PSAs featuring individuals in their domestic settings. (Source:

5.11 Create Identification

As pandemics evoke negative emotional responses – first and foremost, fear [29] - that affect whole populations, crisis communication itself should not only center on people [101] but also familiarize them with proper behavior, e.g., by featuring role models [102, 103]. If identification is high, people are driven into compliance, which can positively effect crisis management [104, 105]. Governments have featured a number of role models in their campaigns, including health-care workers (U.S.), or celebrities (as narrators in the U.S.).

5.12 Feature community members

Besides medical experts or celebrities [39], a number of studies has highlighted the importance of featuring nonpolitical sources, whose statements are perceived as credible and trustworthy [77, 106, 107]. For instance, people have been found to easily relate to individuals who are similar to them (i.e. “community ambassadors”; [16]). Previous research has been able to demonstrate that similarity with the testimonial featured in a promotional or risk message can be a useful tool to increase message effectiveness [108, 109], as well as message credibility and acceptance [110]. As community members resemble real people, individuals are also more likely to follow their lead and take up proposed behaviors [111]. This strategy has been employed in several countries, including the U.S., Germany, and Austria (for examples, seeFigure 7above).

5.13 Take individual health literacy levels into account

Messages also must be reflective of individuals’ respective health literacy levels3 [48, 72, 114]. Numerous studies determined individual’s health literacy is rather low [48, 114, 115, 116]. “Barriers that keep the people we want to become more scientifically literate from understanding what we do [is that] they do not know the terminology”. For this reason, messages must ensure that people do not feel overwhelmed with the information they are presented with. Governments seem to have taken this advice to heart by predominantly broadcasting simple messages, such as it was the case in Austria, Germany, and Australia.

5.14 Reduce message complexity

While low health literacy levels can result in unintended health outcomes [51], messages low in complexity can enhance both individuals’ message processing and willingness to act on the recommendations presented therein [51]. More complex messages, however challenge individuals as they require more elaborate health literacy skills for individuals to not only understand the message, but also align message content with existing knowledge [117]. Examples for reduced and simplified messages can be found for Germany, Austria, as well as for UNICEF and FIAF, who heavily relied on visual (instructive) information. For examples from Austria, seeFigure 8.

Figure 8.

Austrian PSAs with strong visuals but low in complexity. (Source:

5.15 Present information in dual mode

Health campaigns have been found to increasingly rely on videos [118], which present information in dual form, meaning in both textual and visual form. In the first instance, facts can be both presented in written and auditory form (voiceover or narration) and might be supported by illustrations and pictograms (e.g., [51]). Narration particularly caters to individuals with low health literacy levels, who can process spoken information more readily than written information [119]. Personal stories that are directly linked to the health-cause and narrated by testimonials, can increase identification and message impact [108, 110]. Videos’ dual-mode presentation information processing and message recall [120, 121]. For example, campaign videos in Germany and Austria were dubbed, while textual information was complemented with pictograms in Austria and Australia (seeFigure 9).

Figure 9.

Austrian PSAs utilizing information and pictograms. (Source:

5.16 Tailor information to individual needs

If individuals act upon the proposed actions by the government depends on the impact – both in economic and social terms – associated with the health risk [18, 44], as well as their ability to make sense of the information they are presented with [122]. Governments are, therefore, advised to tailor their communications to individual information needs [123, 124, 125]. In Austria, for example, campaign messages differed, depending on the message’s designated target group (e.g., elderly at-risk people, general population, etc.).

5.17 Utilize switch buttons

According to previous research, individual message preferences vary, and different message formats are preferred [16, 54]. For this reason, messages must be provided where individuals are likely to encounter them [126, 127], taking generational differences and media preferences into consideration. For instance, campaign messages in Austria and Germany concluded with links to the Government’s website, where additional information could be retrieved.


6. Conclusion

If crisis strikes, government officials are called upon to act quickly and engage in increased communication [6, 7]. The present study reviewed some existing literature and combined it with insights from health communication, in an attempt to provide some recommendations for effective COVID-19 health risk message design. This is crucial, for individuals’ risk perceptions have been found to predict their likelihood of engaging in preventive behaviors, also in the case of pandemics [82] and in the case of emerging infectious diseases (EID) [8].

At any time during the crisis, message complexity should be reduced [122, 128], requiring lesser cognitive capacities on behalf of individuals to process message [51]. This is specifically important, if scientific evidence is presented. Only if message match the audience’s cognitive capacities, individuals can play an active role in managing health risks. Moreover, visual (affective) stimuli can elicit emotions in individuals, and enhance message acceptance and learning, specifically if new information is presented [121].

Communication strategies are further recommended to take audiences’ attitudes and inherent needs for comprehensive and instructional information – which appeals to their self-efficacy [43] – into account [129]. Hence, government officials are advised to optimize message presentation, especially when the problem or risk addressed in this message affects whole populations. As such, it is important to increase both the identification with and the relevance of message content, evoking individuals into compliance. In order to increase identification and create familiarity with proper crisis behavior, communication should center on the affected population [18, 80, 104] and feature community members [43]. In order to increase message comprehensibility, information needs to be presented in simple language and in a straight-forward-manner, while also reducing message complexity [100, 120], e.g., through the inclusion of visuals. If message content is too complex, effectiveness can be enhanced by presenting information in dual form, i.e. by combining visual/auditory and textual elements [51]. For instance, narration can increase a message’s persuasive impact [130], while also aiding respondents’ identification with the message [131]. A dual-more presentation can thus help overcome respondents’ potential resistance to message content [132], while also favoring those with low health literacy rates – a problem, that still challenges health communication in the age of COVID-19 [48, 114].

There are several limitations to the list of recommendations presented herein. Even though the study is based on a comprehensive literature review, it only focused on research articles from the field of strategic communication and health communication. Moreover, the national campaign examples only offer insights into the communication strategies utilized by the German, Austrian, U.S. American (New York) and Australian government. PSAs might be conceptualized differently in other parts of the world. Future research should also emphasize how campaign messages have changed as the COVID-19 pandemic progressed.



The author acknowledges the financial support by the University of Klagenfurt.


  1. 1. Saliou, P. (1994). Crisis communication in the event of a flu pandemic. European Journal of Epidemiology 10, 515-517
  2. 2. Reynolds, B. (2007). Crisis Emergency Risk Communication Pandemic Influenza. Retrieved from
  3. 3. Covello, V.T. (2003). Best practices in public health risk and crisis communication. Journal of Health Communication 8(supplement 1), 5-8
  4. 4. Tinker, T.L., Zook, E., & Chapel, T.J. (2001). Key challenges and concepts in health risk communication: perspectives of agency practitioners. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 7(1), 67-75
  5. 5. Coombs, W.T. (2007a). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  6. 6. Shuaib, F., Gunnala, R., Musa, E.O., Mahoney, F.J., Oguntimehin, O., Nguku, P.M. et al. (2014). Ebola virus disease outbreak – Nigeria: July – September 2014. MMWR: Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 63(39), 867-872
  7. 7. Wabba, A.P. (2014). Statement by the medical and health workers’ Union of Nigeria regarding the Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in west Africa. Retrieved from
  8. 8. Gesser-Edelsburg, A., Stolero, N., Mordini, E., Billingsley, M., James, J.J., & Green, M.S. (2015). Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) Communication during the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak: Literature Review (2009-2013) of the Methodology Used for EID communication analysis. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness 9(2), 199-206
  9. 9. Menon, K.U. (2008). Risk Communications: In Search of a Pandemic. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore 37(6), 525-534
  10. 10. Paton, D. (2008). Modeling societal resilience to pandemic hazards in Auckland. GNS Science Report 13, 23
  11. 11. Tay, J., Ng, Y.F., Cutter, J., & James, L. (2010). Influenza (H1N1-2009) Pandemic in Singapore – Public Health Control Measures Implemented and Lessons Learned. Annals of the Academy of Medicine Singapore 39, 313-324
  12. 12. Li, R., Xie, R., Yang, C. & Frost, M. (2016). Perceptions on the risk communication strategy during the 2013 avian influenza A/H7N9 outbreak in humans in China: a focus group study. WPSAR 7(2), 1-8
  13. 13. Goodwin, R. & Sun, S. (2014). Early responses to H7N9 in Southern Mainland China. BMC Infectious Diseases 14(1), 8
  14. 14. Jin, Y., Iles, I., Austin, L., Liu, B. & Hancock, G. (2020). The Infectious Disease Threat (IDT) Appraisal Model: How perceptions of IDT 310 predictability and controllability predict individuals‘ responses to risks. International Journal of Strategic Communication 14(4), 246-271
  15. 15. Pfefferbaum, B. & North, C.S. (2020). Mental health the COVID-19 pandemic. The New England Journal of Medicine 383(6), 510-512
  16. 16. Gray, L., MacDonald, C., Mackie, B., Paton, D., Johnston, D., & Baker, M.G. (2012). Community responses to communication campaigns for influenza A (H1N1): a focus group study. BMC Public Health 12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-205
  17. 17. Rains, S.A., Crane, T.E., Iyengar, S., Merchant, N., Oxnam, M., Sprinkle, M.M. & Ernst, K.C. (2020). Community-Level Health Promotion during a Pandemic: Key Considerations for Health Communication. Health Communication35(14), 1747-1749
  18. 18. Blendon, R.J., Koonin, L.M., Benson, J.M. et al. (2008). Public response to community mitigation measures for pandemic influenza. Emerging Infectious Diseases 14, 778-786
  19. 19. Rasmussen, S.A., Jamieson, D.J., & Bresee, J.S. (2008). Pandemic influenza and pregnant women. Emerging Infectious Diseases 14, 95-100
  20. 20. OST. (2000). Science and the Public: A review of science communication and public attitudes to science in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 10(3), 315-330.
  21. 21. Burns, T.W., O’Connor, D.J. & Stocklmeyer, S.M. (2003). Science Communication: a contemporary Definition. Public Understanding of Science 12, 183
  22. 22. Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science Technology and Human Values 30, 251-290
  23. 23. Fischhoff, B. & Scheufele, D.A. (2012). The Science of Science Communication. PNAS 116(16), 7632-7633
  24. 24. Bodmer, W. (2010). Public Understanding of Science: The BA, the Royal Society and COPUS. Notes and Records of the Royal Society 64S151–S161.
  25. 25. Bowater, L. & Yeoman, K. (2013). Science Communication: A Practical Guide for Scientists. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell
  26. 26. Brug, J., Aro, A.R., Oenema, A., De Zwart, O., Richardus, J., and Bishop, G. (2004). SARS risk perception, knowledge, precautions, and information sources, the Netherlands. Emerging Infectious Diseases 10(8). 1486-1489. doi: 10.3201/eid1008.040283
  27. 27. Gaglia, M.A., Cook, R.L., Kraemer, K.L., and Rothberg, M.B. (2008). Patient knowledge and attitudes about avian influenza in an internal medicine clinic. Public Health 122(5), 462-470
  28. 28. Paek, H.J., Hilyard, K., Freimuth, V.S., Barge, J.K., & Mindlin, M. (2008). Public support for government actions during a flu pandemic: Lessons learned from a statewide survey. Health Promotion Practice 9(S4), 60-72
  29. 29. Van Bavel Baicker, K., Boggio, P.S. et al. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature – Human Behavior 4, 460-471.
  30. 30. Coombs, W.T. (2007b). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review,10(3), 163-176
  31. 31. Reynolds, B., & Quinn, S.C. (2008). Effective communication during an influenza pandemic: the value of using a crisis and emergency risk communication framework. Health Promotion Practice 9(4) – supplement, 13S-17S
  32. 32. Lee, K. (2009). How the Hong Kong Government lost the public trust in SARS: Insights for governmental communication in health crisis. Public Relations Review 35, 74-76
  33. 33. Nelson, O. & Namtira, B.-J. (2017). Measuring media campaigns effectiveness for environmental health for sustainable development: A Study of Ebola Outbreak in Lagos State, Nigeria. Journal of Health Management 19(4), 553-562
  34. 34. Liu, B.F. & Horsely, J.S. (2007). The government communication decision wheel: toward a public relations model for the public sector. Journal of Public Relations Research 19(4), 377-393
  35. 35. Sowka A. (2016) Wissenschaftskommunikation zwischen Sozialforschung und Praxis. Wiesbaden: Springer.
  36. 36. Reynolds, B. (2006).Crisis and emergency risk communication: Pandemic Influenza. Atlanta, GA: CDC
  37. 37. Wright, K.B., Sparks, L., & O’Hair, H.D. (2008). Health Communication in the 21st century. Oxford: Blackwell
  38. 38. Murry, J.P., Stam, A., & Lastovicka, J.L. (1996). Paid-Versus Donated-Media Strategies for Public Service Announcement Campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly,60(1). 1-29
  39. 39. Manganello, J., Bleakley, A. & Schumacher, P. (2020). Pandemics and PSAs: Rapidly Changing Information in a new Media Landscape. Health Communication 35(14), 1711-1714
  40. 40. Salmon, C., & Atkin, C.K. (2003). Media campaigns for health promotion. In T.L. Thompson, A.M. Dorsey, K.I. Miller, and R. Parrott (ed). Handbook of Health Communication (pp. 285-313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
  41. 41. Covello, V.T. et al. (2001). Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional and unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. Journal of Urban Health 78(2), 382-391
  42. 42. Fitzpatrick-Lewis, D. et al. (2010). Communication about environmental health risks: a systematic review. Environmental Health 9(1), 67
  43. 43. Heymann, D. (2020). COVID-19: what is next for public health? The Lancet 395
  44. 44. Vaughan, E. & Tinker, T. (2009). Effective health risk communication about pandemic influenza for vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health 99(S2), 324-332
  45. 45. Wray, R.J. et al. (2008). Communicating with the public about emerging health threats: lessons from the Pre-Event Message Development Project. American Journal of Public Health 98(12), 2214-2222
  46. 46. Stephens, K.K., Jahn, J.L.S., Fox, S., Charoensap-Kelly, P., Mitra, R., Sutton, J., Waters, E.D., Xie, B. & Meisenbach, R.J. (2020). Collective sensemaking around COVID-19: Experiences, concerns, and agendas for our rapidly changing organizational lives. Management Communication Quarterly 34(3), 426-457
  47. 47. Holmes, B.J. (2008). Communicating about emerging infectious disease: the importance of research. Health, Risk and Society 10, 349-360
  48. 48. Paakkari, L. & Okan, O. (2020). COVID-19: health literacy is an underestimated problem. The Lancet 5, DOI:
  49. 49. Nelson, O. (2011). Mass media strategies for creating awareness of breast cancer. Public Knowledge Journal 3(1), 1-18
  50. 50. Hendriks, H., van den Putte, B., de Bruijn, G. J., & de Vreese, C. H. (2014). Predicting health: the interplay between interpersonal communication and health campaigns. Journal of Health Communication,19(5), 625-636
  51. 51. Meppelink, C.S., van Weert, J. C.M., Haven, C.J., & Smit, E.G. (2015). The effectiveness of health animations in audiences with different health literacy levels: An experimental study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 17(1), e11. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3979
  52. 52. Moorhead, S.A., Hazlett, D.E., Harrision, L., Carroll, J.K., Irwin, A., & Hoving, C. (2013). A new dimension of health care: systematic review of the uses, benefits, and limitations of social media for health communication. Journal of Medical Internet Research 15(4), e85
  53. 53. Freeman, A.L.J., Kerr, J., Recchia, G., Schneider, C.R., Lawrence, A.C.E., Kinikarides, L., Luoni, G., Dryhurst, S., & Spiegelhalter, D.J. (2020). Communicating personalised risks from COVID-19: guidelines from an empirical study. medRxiv 2020.10.05.20206961; doi:
  54. 54. Fischhoff B. (2005). Scientifically sound pandemic risk communication. In D. Kamien (ed.). McGraw Hill Handbook of Terrorism and Counter-Terrorism. (p. 14). New York: McGraw Hill
  55. 55. Browne, M., Thomson, P., Rockloff, M., & Pennycook, G. (2015). Going against the herd: psychological and cultural factors underlying the vaccination confidence gap. PloS One 10(9).
  56. 56. Wallis, P. & Nerlich, B. (2005). Disease metaphors in new epidemics: The UK media framing of the 2003 SARS epidemic. Social Science and Medicine 60(11), 2629-2639
  57. 57. Kim, S. & Fisher Liu, B. (2012). Are all Crisis Opportunities? A Comparison of How Corporate and Government Organizations Respond to the 2009 Flu Pandemic. Journal of Public Relations Research 24(1), 69-85
  58. 58. Novac, A. (2001). Traumatic stress and human behavior. Psychiatric Times. Retrieved from
  59. 59. Seeger, M.W., Sellnow, T.L., & Ulmer, R.R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Westport, CT: Praeger
  60. 60. Wray, R. & Jupka, K. (2004). What does the public want to know in the event of a terrorist attack using plague? Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 2(3), 208-215
  61. 61. Noar, S.M. & Austin, L. (2020). (Mis)communicating about COVID-19. Insights from Health and Crisis Communication. Health Communication 35(14), 1735-1739
  62. 62. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis
  63. 63. Chou, W.-Y. S. & Budenz, A. (2020). Considering Emotion in COVID-19 vaccine communication: addressing vaccine hesitancy and fostering vaccine confidence. Health Communication 35(14), 1718-1722
  64. 64. Witte, K. & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior 27(5), 591-615
  65. 65. Cialdini, R.B. & Goldstein, N.J. (2004). Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology 55, 591-621
  66. 66. Lapinski M.K. & Rimal R.N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory 15(2), 127-147
  67. 67. Sedlander, E. & Rimal, R.N. (2019). Beyond individual-level theorizing in social norms research: How collective norms and media access affect adolescents’ use of contraception. Journal of Adolescent Health 64(4), 31-36
  68. 68. Rimal, R.N. & Storey, J.D. (2020). Construction of Meaning during a Pandemic: The Forgotten Role of Social Norms. Health Communication 35(14), 1732-1734
  69. 69. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B. & Lichtenstein, S. (1981). Perceived risk: psychological factors and social implications. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 376(1764), 17-34
  70. 70. Abrams, E.M. & Greenhawt, M. (2020). Risk Communication during COVID-19. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 8, 1791-1794
  71. 71. Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D.G. (2007). The affect heuristic. European Journal of Operative Research 177, 1333-1352
  72. 72. Smith, R.D. (2006). Responding to global infectious disease outbreaks: Lessons from SARS on the role of risk perception, communication and management. Social Science and Medicine 63, 3113-3123
  73. 73. Lwin, M.O., Lu, J., Sheldekar, A., Schulz, P.J., Shin, W., Gupta, R. & Yang, Y. (2020). Global sentiments surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic on twitter: Analysis of twitter trends. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance 6(2), e19447. DOI: 10.2196/19447
  74. 74. Jordan, J., Yoeli, E. & Rand, D. (2020). Don’t get it or don’t spread it? Comparing self-interested versus prosocially framed COVID-19 preventing messaging. PsyArXiv Preprints.10.31234/
  75. 75. Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people. Environmental Education Research 18(5), 625-642
  76. 76. Heffner, J., Vives, M. & Feldman Hall, O. (2020). Emotional responses to prosocial messages increase willingness to self-isolate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences 170,
  77. 77. Noar, S.M. (2006). A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: Where do we go from here? Journal of Health Communication 11(1), 21-42
  78. 78. Avery, E. & Park, S. (2016). Effects of crisis efficacy on intentions to follow directives during crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research 28(2), 72-86
  79. 79. Kreuter, M. W., & Wray, R. J. (2003). Tailored and targeted health communication: Strategies for enhancing information relevance. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27(Suppl. 3), 227-232
  80. 80. Kreuter, M.W., Green, M.C., Capella, J.N., Slater, M.D., Wise, M.E., Storey, D. et al. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Annals in Behavioral Medicine 33, 221-235
  81. 81. So, J., & Nabi, R. (2013). Reduction of perceived social distance as an explanation for media’s influence on personal risk perceptions: A test of the risk convergence model. Human Communication Research, 39(3), 317-338
  82. 82. Bish, A. & Michie, S. (2010). Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective behaviours during a pandemic: a review. British Journal of Health Psychology 15, 797-824
  83. 83. Dryhurst, S., Schneider, C.R., Kerr, J., Freeman, A.L.J., Reccahia, G., van der Bles, A.M., Spielgelhalter, D. & van der Linden, S. (2020). Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. Journal of Risk Research 23(7-8), 994-1006
  84. 84. Leppin, A. & Aro, A.R. (2009). Risk perceptions related to SARS and avian influenza: Theoretical foundations of current empirical research. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine 16(1), 7-29
  85. 85. Perugini, M. & Bagozzi, R.P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed behaviours: Broadening and deepening the theory of planned behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology 40(1), 79-98
  86. 86. Betsch, C., Ulshöfer, C., Renkewitz, F. & Betsch, T. (2011). The influence of narrative vs. statistical information on perceiving vaccination risks. Medical Decision Making 31(5), 742-753
  87. 87. Morgul, E., Bener, A., Atak, M., Akyel, S., Aktas, S., Bhugra, D., Ventriglio, A. & Jordan, T.R. (2020). COVID-19 pandemic and psychological fatigue in Turkey. International Journal of Social Psychiatry. doi: 10.1177/0020764020941889
  88. 88. Qui, J., Shen, B., Zhao, M., Wang, Z., Xie, B. & Yu, Y. (2020). A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: Implications and policy recommendations. General Psychiatry 33(2), doi: 10.1136/gpsych-2020-100213
  89. 89. Wang, C., Pan, R., Wan, X., Tan, Y., Xu, L., Ho, C.S. & Ho, R.C. (2020). Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(5), 1-25
  90. 90. Kinnear, T. C., Bernhadt, K. L. & Krentler, K. A. (1995). Principles of marketing. 4th ed. New York: Longman
  91. 91. Aaker, D.A. & Norris, D. (1982). Characteristics of TV Commercials Perceived as Informative. Journal of Advertising Research 22. 61-70
  92. 92. Wilson, E.A. & Wolf, M.S. (2009). Working memory and the design of health materials: A cognitive factors perspective. Patient Education and Counseling 74(3), 318-322
  93. 93. Dillard, J.P. & Nabi, R.L. (2006). The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. Journal of Communication 56(supplement 1), 123-139
  94. 94. Lang, A. & Yegiyan, N.S. (2008). Understanding the interactive effects of emotional appeal and claim strength in health messages. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 52(3), 432-447
  95. 95. Stephens, L.K. & Malone, P.C. (2009). If the organization won’t give us information. The use of multiple new media for crisis technical translation and dialogue. Journal of Public Relations Research21, 229-239
  96. 96. Loewenstein, G.F., Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K. & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as Feelings. Psychological Bulletin 127, 267-286
  97. 97. Slovic, P, Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: some thoughts about affect, reason, risk and rationality. Risk Analysis 24, 311-322
  98. 98. Hsee, C.K. & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: o the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology (General) 133, 23-30
  99. 99. Rottenstreich, Y. & Hsee, C.K. (2001). Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. P Money, kisses, and electric shocks: on the affective psychology of risk. Psychological Science 12, 185-190
  100. 100. Houts, P.S., Doak, C.C., Doak, L.G., & Loscalzo, M. J. (2006). The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Education and Counseling 61, 173-190
  101. 101. Ratzan, S.C., Sommarivac, S., & Rauh, L. (2020). Enhancing global health communication during a crisis: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health Research & Practice 30(2),
  102. 102. Grant, A.M. and Hofmann, D.A. (2011). It’s not all about me: motivating hand hygiene among health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychological Science 22, 1494-1499
  103. 103. Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. (2019). Moral reframing: a technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 13.
  104. 104. Kahan, D.M. et al. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change 2, 732-735
  105. 105. Drummond, C. & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. PNAS 114,
  106. 106. Boynton, M.H., O’Hara, R.E., Tennen, H. & Lee, J.G.L (2020). The impact of public health organization and political figure message sources on reactions to coronavirus prevention messages. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 60(1), 136-138
  107. 107. Jin, Y., Austin, L., Vijaykumar, S., Jun, H. & Nowak, G. (2019). Communicating about infectious disease threats: Insights from public health information officers. Public Relations Review 45(1), 167-177
  108. 108. Ahn, S. J., Fox, J., & Hahm, J. M. (2014). Using virtual doppelgängers to increase personal relevance of health risk communication. In T. Bickmore, S. Marsella, & C. Sidner (Eds.), Intelligent virtual agents (IVA 2014) (pp. 1-12). Cham: Springer
  109. 109. Kresovich, A. & Noar, S.M. (2020). The power of celebrity health events: Meta-analysis of the relationship between audience involvement and behavioral intentions. Journal of Health Communication 25(6),
  110. 110. Lasker, R.D. (2004). Redefining readiness: terrorism planning through the eyes of the public. New York: The New Work Academy of Medicine
  111. 111. Phua, J. & Tinkham, S. (2016). Authenticity in obesity public service announcement: influence of spokesperson type, viewer weight, and source credibility on exercise, information seeking, and electronic word-of-mouth intentions. Journal of Health Communication 21(3), 337-345
  112. 112. Ratzan, S.C. & Parker, R.M. (2000). Introduction. In C.R. Selden, M., Zorn, S. Ratzan and R. M. Parker (eds.). National library of medicine current bibliographies in medicine: health literacy. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health
  113. 113. Nutbeam, D. (2000). Health literacy as a public health goal: A challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International 15(3), 259-267
  114. 114. Nguyen, A. & Catalan-Matamoros, D. (2020). Digital Mis/Disinformation and Public Engagement with Health and Science Controversies: Fresh Perspectives from Covid-19. Media & Communication 8(2), 323-328
  115. 115. Hickey, K.T., Masterson Creber, R.M., Reading, M., Sciacca, R.R., Riga, T.C., Frulla, A.P., and Casida, J.M. (2018). Low health literacy: Implications for managing cardiac patients in practice. Nurse Practioner 43(8), 49-55
  116. 116. Sonderheimer, J. (2019). Low Health Literacy: A Guide for Public Health Advocates. Retrieved from
  117. 117. Squiers, L., Peinado, S., Berkman, N., Boudewyns, V. and McCormack, L. (2012). The health literacy skills framework. Journal of Health Communication 17(S3), 30-54
  118. 118. Tseng, C.-H. & Huang, T.-L. (2016). Internet advertising video facilitating health communication: Narrative and emotional perspectives. Internet Research 26(1), 236-264
  119. 119. Höffler, T.N. & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and Instruction 17(6), 722-738
  120. 120. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication 50, 46-70
  121. 121. Mayer, R.E. & Moreno, R. (2002). Animation as an aid to multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review 14(1), 87-99
  122. 122. Sorensen, K., Van den Broucke, S., Fullam, J., Doyle, G., Pelikan, J., Sonska, Z. et al. (2012). Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health 12, 80.
  123. 123. Lwin, M.O., Vijaykumar, S., Fernando, O.N.N., Cheong, S.A., Rahnayake, V.S., Lim, G., Theng, Y.-L., Chaudhuri, S. & Foo, S. (2014). A 21st century approach to taking dengue: Crowdsourced surveillance, predictive mapping and tailored communication. Acta Tropica 130(Feb), 100-107
  124. 124. Rousseau, C., Moreau, N., Dumas, M.-P., Bost, I., Lefebvre, S., and Atlani-Duault, L. (2015). Public media communications about H1N1, risk perceptions and immunization behaviors: A Quebec-France comparison. Public Understanding of Science 24(2), 225-240
  125. 125. Stolow, J.A., Moses, L.M., Lederer, A.M. & Carter, R. (2020). How Fear Appeal Approaches in COVID-19 Health Communication may be harming the Global Community. Health Education & Behaviour 47(45), 531-535
  126. 126. Kim, K.S., Sin, S.C.J. & Tsai, T.I. (2014). Individual differences in social media use for information seeking. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 40(2), 171-178
  127. 127. Young, D. & Bleakley, Y. (2020). Ideological health spirals: An integrated political and health communication approach to COVID-19 interventions. International Journal of Communication 14, 3508-3524
  128. 128. Mazor, K.M., Calvi, J., Cowan, R., Costanza, M.E., Han, P.K., Greene, S.M. et al. (2010). Media messages about cancer: What do people understand? Journal of Health Communication 15(S2), 126-145
  129. 129. George, A. & Selzer, J. (2007). Kenneth Burke in the 1930s. Columbia; SC: University of South Carolina Press
  130. 130. Escalas, J.E. (2004). Narrative processing: Building consumer connections to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 14, 168-180
  131. 131. Green, M.C. & Brock, T.C: (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79, 701-721
  132. 132. Dillard, J.P. & Shen, L. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs 72, 144-168


  • The arguments presented in this chapter build on a "Public Understanding of Science" and "Public Awareness of Science", both of which attest to the general public’s attitudes, behaviors, or opinions towards science and scientific knowledge [24, 25].
  • Collective norms describe "prevailing codes of conduct that either prescribe or proscribe behaviors that members of a group can enact" ([66], p. 29).
  • In general, health literacy is defined as an individual’s ability to process and comprehend health information [112]. A more broadly speaking, health literacy encompasses individuals’ reading and writing skills, their ability to distinguish relevant from irrelevant information as well to critically analyze and reflect upon the information retrieved [113].

Written By

Isabell Koinig

Submitted: 21 December 2020 Reviewed: 03 February 2021 Published: 02 March 2021