Abstract
This essay analyses the official communications response to COVID-19 in Australia in relation to its effectiveness in engaging communities to encourage the behaviour changes required to address the outbreak. In particular, it outlines three key considerations regarding the way in which the use of community engagement in the humanitarian sector during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo can inform current and future information preparedness of Governments in Australia in response to health and social crises.
Keywords
There is no easy way to impart bad news. First, people do not want to hear it or believe it, and then often the reaction to it can be adverse or combative, pushing back on the information or the messenger and refusing to trust either. In the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis in Australia, information was quickly established as a currency of primary value, and the extent to which the public were willing to accept the bad news, along with the advice on how to process and react to that news, followed a relatively predictable course even in the face of an unprecedented health crisis.
This essay will focus on the role that sustained community engagement and the use of consistent and coordinated communications can have in an urgent health and social crisis such as was presented by the presence of COVID-19 in Australia. The threat posed to the regular way of life demanded community cooperation, participation and behaviour change, and the interconnected crises would result in a wrestle between communicating expectations and uncertainty and adjusting to new social ‘norms’. As such, this essay will draw upon lessons learned from the international humanitarian sector, which has established a significant track record in the implementation of effective community engagement in times of crisis, and will use the specific example of the response to the Ebola outbreaks in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to consider a series of specific steps that can be adapted to the Australian context in order to build communication preparedness for the continuing COVID-19 situation and future national health and socio-economic crises.
One critical aspect that hindered the communications response in the early stages of the COVID-19 crisis in Australia was a lack of coordination. 1 Conflicting information and advice provided by national and state officials, 2 unrealistic requests for immediate changes in behaviours that are at the core of our society, and multiple releases of communication at unpredictable times contributed to a rise in public confusion and, critically, a reduction in trust in the messengers. 3
Trust is a critically central tenet of any behaviour change or community engagement campaign, and a key element in building and sustaining that trust is a coordinated and consistent approach (Koenker et al., 2014). In the absence of a vaccine, sharing information and effective community engagement has been identified as a primary way to arrest the spread of COVID-19. In its April update to its COVID-19 Strategy, the World Health Organization (2020) advised governments that ‘Slowing the transmission of COVID-19 and protecting communities will require the participation of every member of at-risk and affected communities to prevent infection and transmission’.
Meanwhile, limited scientific understanding of the behaviour of COVID-19 gradually increased while the virus spread. As the mysterious disease revealed itself and its economic impacts were measured, there was a palpable urgency to share information about symptoms, cures and future scenarios. Indeed, it was acknowledged by key global agencies the World Health Organization, UNICEF and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2020) that ‘. . . the COVID-19 outbreak and response has been accompanied by an “infodemic,” an overabundance of information from various sources – some accurate and some not – that makes it hard for people to decide which is a trustworthy source of information’. Wrong, misleading and conflicting information and a lack of information can give rise to confusion, anxiety and ultimately exacerbates the spread of the disease. Furthermore, people, especially the most vulnerable, are likely to look for ‘facts’ or cherry pick information when there is no clearly identifiable trusted source or mechanism through which to ask questions or give feedback. This was witnessed right around the world throughout the initial months of the outbreak, leading to a high risk of the general public believing, seeking and sharing rumours and misinformation. It is a pattern familiar to humanitarians who respond in the first phase of emergencies, where timely, verified and actionable information is understood to save lives, and prevent or mitigate the disastrous effects of crises on communities (CDAC Network, 2014). In the early stages of the COVID-19 outbreak in Australia, the lack of coordination in communications led to a trust deficit between Governments and the public, and while it is understandable that in the early stages of a crisis mistakes will be made, there are clear learnings from the humanitarian sector that can be translated to the Australian context in order to better ensure effective community engagement during a crisis.
What humanitarians have learned firsthand about risk and behaviour change communications is that they lie at the intersection between communities’ needs, language and literacy and the relationships between people and their preferred and trusted sources of information such as leaders, broadcast channels and social media. 4 However, this more complex comprehension has been a relatively recent development in the humanitarian sector, particularly when it pertains to disaster and emergency response. At the start of this decade, Wall and Gerald Chery (2011) noted that humanitarian organisations ‘. . . still see “communication” as primarily the process of delivering or extracting information’, even though dialogic models are ‘. . . much more effective on multiple levels’. In the intervening years, techniques for effectively sharing information and engaging with communities in crisis have been developed, tested and as a result the sector has made significant collective commitments to community engagement in crisis contexts and health emergencies. For example, evidence of this can be seen in the methods adopted by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) (2018) in their efforts to overcome the Ebola outbreaks in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These approaches are enshrined in commitments such as The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS Alliance, Group URD and the Sphere Project, 2014), and the United Nations Inter-Agency Standing Committee (2018) Commitments on Accountability to Affected People and Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse.
There are three key elements from these experiences and frameworks that can be considered in relation to Australia’s future information preparedness for health and social emergencies, which in this essay will be analysed in relation to their use in the Ebola outbreaks in West Africa and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The first element to consider is that a repetitive and cyclical communications process should operate as a central part of the response and be integrated into the complex information ecology that communities exist within. A logical response to an ‘infodemic’ or abundance of misleading and potentially harmful information is to ensure that information that is factual, accessible and actionable is available to communities in equal measure. The consistent dissemination of this quality information is essential. Ideally, communications from multiple sources should carry the same information, advice and updates. During the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, the ways in which repetitive information and behaviour change communications were intimately intertwined with the health response. As several organisations who were involved in the response have identified (IFRC, 2018; Internews, 2015), this allowed both the community and experts to adapt and respond more effectively. Information was shared and updated at regular coordination meetings of government leaders and humanitarian actors and action flowed from there. The humanitarian agency Internews (2015) utilised the formidable figure of epidemiologist Tolbert Nyenswah, who led the response, repeatedly in their media engagement newsletters where he explained the need for contact tracing while reassuring the public that the virus could be overcome. While health workers managed the sick and dying, Red Cross community mobilisers spread quality information through regular visits to people in preventive quarantine, and media development agency Internews supported journalists on producing accurate health reporting and actionable advice to listeners. They in turn would bring back questions, rumours and fears from the community to the central coordination forums, to be shared with the health professionals, government and journalists for further follow-up and to encourage critical behaviour change to mitigate the health risks.
To achieve this in relation to COVID-19 or future health and social crises in Australia, there needs to be coordination and cooperation between medical teams, scientists, the decision-makers and the messengers who are, in turn, responsive to the confusion, questions and rumours that are circulating in the community. Informing people of the latest information is therefore part of a continuous dialogue and cyclical flow of information to, from and within communities rather than an individual or episodic event.
The second element for consideration in relation to information preparedness is that Governments can and should identify and utilise existing, preferred and informal channels of communication, and ensure information is made available and drawn into decision-making processes via the channels and sources that communities use and trust. In this context, who delivers the information and how it is delivered is as critical as what is said, and trust is at the centre of that exchange. Indeed, Translators Without Borders (2020) indicated that officially sourced and verified information is best presented by people who at the very least speak and understand the same languages as those who need it, and audio visual formats are often more effective. Simply ‘messaging’ via a billboard or public service announcement is not enough. People experiencing fear and anxiety around contracting the virus, or worse, of dying, will verify and seek confirmation of messages from trusted sources that have a role in their lives beyond the emergency or role of an official government authority. As observed by BBC Media Action (2016) during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone, where radio is a widely used medium for discussion and debate as well as news, daily broadcasts featuring community leaders and preachers, government representatives and medical specialists were critical, and eventually led to the behaviour change that resulted in the reduction of the community transmission of the virus. When it relates to the use of preferred channels of communication, Governments should, therefore, consider literacy, language and format, as audio and visual material can be a more effective way to inform and engage community members of all ages and backgrounds (Austin et al., 2012).
The third aspect to consider is that assumptions of all kinds are easily made but should be avoided altogether as they can exacerbate vulnerabilities. Investing in understanding the communications needs of communities through direct research and assessments provides an evidence basis and can bring their needs and views into the process of programme and policy design and adaptation. It is increasingly understood that every community comprises people with different information needs, habits and preferences, and understanding them is essential to overcoming a crisis. As noted by Baggio (2020), during the Ebola response in the Democratic Republic of Congo, perceptions data were regularly collected from communities in outbreak areas, to inform responders about community concerns, beliefs and priorities and to tailor response mechanisms that were more appropriate and effective. In fact, the adoption of information and communication considerations into needs assessments is increasing in the humanitarian sector more broadly, and is being recognised as a key mechanism to improve the provision of aid (Davies, 2019; Marzotto, 2019). This has clear relevance to future considerations regarding Australia’s crisis information preparedness, particularly when it relates to the avoidance of assumptions in communications outputs.
When a health and social crisis impacts highly resourced countries, disaster response should in theory be easier. However, the example of the critical early days of the COVID-19 crisis showed key similarities with mistakes made in distant humanitarian disasters. In the initial days and weeks of uncertainty and panic, was the wider public, including the most vulnerable, consulted, informed, engaged and included, in their own languages and in ways that resonated culturally? Governments in Australia have vast public resources available, leading health and scientific researchers, experts, trained and committed journalists as well as the prolific community broadcasting sector. Indeed, even the Australian Broadcasting Corporation has a specific emergency broadcasting division, which is well recognised for its output during natural disasters, such as bushfires, but has not clearly been utilised in its regular emergency function to provide its proven format of information outputs and emergency broadcasts. 5 Coordination of all the resources at the Government’s disposal, which are an essential mechanism in international emergency responses and humanitarian architecture, could better serve the public to encourage adoption of behaviour change. While there were undoubtedly examples of strong communications from various broadcasters during these early days, including the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Special Broadcasting Service (SBS), the lessons learned from experiences in the humanitarian sector provide a blueprint with which Governments can build information preparedness for future crises. Repeating and circulating key information, utilising trusted and informal communication networks to both give and receive information, and the need to avoid assumptions and generalisations are all key in ensuring that critical information is broadly accepted and changes in behaviour are adopted in order to stem the spread of a health crisis.
