Search

Health communication has relevance for virtually every aspect of health and well-being, including disease prevention. This review explored the effectiveness of communications in enhancing the adoption of or adherence to behavioural interventions (non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs)) related to COVID-19. The review takes the UK as a case study and focuses on self-reported behaviours (e.g. social distancing). It also reviews the psychosocial determinants of adherence. Searches were conducted using PubMed; Scopus; CINAL; ASSIA and iCite databases. Eleven thousand five hundred records were identified and 13 were included in the final sample. Included studies suggest that NPI adoption or adherence was generally high, and communication had significant impacts, with key themes including clarity and consistency, trust and control. Based on the evidence in this review, features of effective communication in the content of NPI adoption or adherence are (i) information should be conveyed clearly and conflicting (mixed) messages should be avoided; (ii) information should be conveyed by trusted sources (e.g. health authorities) and (iii) communication should strike a balance between being authoritative but avoiding language seen as controlling (e.g. ‘you must’). Future research should prioritize quantitative, experimental and longitudinal study designs, that focus specifically on communication as an intervention, and which measure behaviour.This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the Covid-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

Communicating the rationale for allocating resources to manage policy priorities and their risks is challenging. Here, we demonstrate that environmental risks have diverse attributes and locales in their effects that may drive disproportionate responses among citizens. When 2,065 survey participants deployed summary information and their own understanding to assess 12 policy-level environmental risks singularly, their assessment differed from a prior expert assessment. However, participants provided rankings similar to those of experts when these same 12 risks were considered as a group, allowing comparison between the different risks. Following this, when individuals were shown the prior expert assessment of this portfolio, they expressed a moderate level of confidence with the combined expert analysis. These are important findings for the comprehension of policy risks that may be subject to augmentation by climate change, their representation alongside other threats within national risk assessments, and interpretations of agency for public risk management by citizens and others.