168 / 658
166
Thursday, November 10
1 4 : 3 0 – 1 6 : 0 0
PP 193
Who’s the Expert in Communicating Public Health Messages in Crisis ? Examining the Roles of Public Health Specialists
and Communication Officers in the Case of Lac-Mégantic Train Disaster
M.D. David
1
, M.E. Carignan
1
1
Université de Sherbrooke, Lettres et communications, Sherbrooke, Canada
Our research deals with the adaptation of communication strategies set out in different public emergency services in the context of the rail explosion and
fire that destroyed downtown Lac-Mégantic in July 2013. The disaster, whose magnitude and consequences were unprecedented in Canada, prompted
the managers of the crisis and those in charge of public safety communications to review established crisis management strategies and practices in order to
adapt to the realities of a particular field and context. The crisis was managed in the context of a digital dead zone and a population exhibiting substantial
difficulty understanding public health messages. The traditional and digital communication strategies set out in the crisis management plan had to be
reviewed in order to incorporate and focus on “old”communication tools to better communicate health messages to disaster victims. Context of the Crisis:
On the night of July 5, 2013, the small and isolated municipality of Lac-Mégantic in Quebec (Canada) was the scene of a rail disaster, the likes of which had
never been seen in the country. A 72-car runaway train operated by MM&A, and filled with crude oil, exploded in the town’s city centre. 47 people were
killed, a third of the population had to be evacuated, and numerous commercial and rental properties were destroyed. Methods and Main Findings: In-depth
semi-structured interview study was conducted with all managers involved in public health communication. Public safety services managed communica‑
tions very well during the disaster, mainly thanks to a dedicated communications team that was well prepared and able to adapt to the situation in the field
(Fediuk, Coombs & Botero, 2012). Major communication problems came to light during co-orientation discussions between public health managers (doc‑
tors) and public safety communications specialists (Gruning & Hunt, 1984; Broom, 1977). These ongoing discussions revealed that critical health messages
were“not getting across”to the disaster victim population. Communications officers quickly understood that many public health messages communicated
by health specialists had not been understood. They had to review together the communication strategy to focus on“old”communication methods such as
posters in public places and on the doors of houses and special radio content to meet communication objectives while adapting to the public at hand. Im‑
plications: This incidence of crisis management demonstrates that formal planning and preparation between public health managers (doctors) and public
safety communications experts are essential (Holladay, 2009), but that they must also adapt together to the specific and evolving context in the field (King,
2010). Finally, our research suggests that the crisis communication strategy, drawn up by different experts in full collaboration, had to quickly shifted toward
a new emergent communication strategy to be effective.
PP 194
Communicating the Risks of Infection in the Light of Public Health Crisis: An Interdisciplinary and Evidenced-Based Approach
A. Osterheider
1
, J. Drews
1
, J. Raupp
1
, V. Dan
1
1
Freie Universitaet Berlin, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Berlin, Germany
The recent outbreaks of Zika virus disease and Ebola have gained extended significance within the public health sector. Given the potential for future
outbreaks, it is worthwhile to investigate how effective risk communication can be part of a proactive crisis communication. The aim of this paper is to
investigate an effective and evidence-based communication of risks of infection. One component of this approach is the communication to different target
groups (patients, farmers, general public etc.) by physicians and scientists. As a number of disciplines study the communication and perception of risks,
this dispersed and heterogeneous knowledge will be systematically analyzed and structured. Finally, the concrete findings will be systematized by using
elements of the communication process (communication strategies, actors, target groups, communication contents). The paper reviews existing literature
on the communication of risks of infection in light of public health crisis. Starting from a communication science point of view, we examined different scien‑
tific disciplines (psychology and linguistics) in terms of how they handle risk perceptions, assessments and information. After a review of the current state
of research, we applied an instrument based on methodologies such as meta-analyses and qualitative reviews. This process can systematize the obtained
research findings by applying elements used in the communication process. Our review of literature from two disciplines shows that although there are
many studies engaged in this issue, only few combine the heterogeneous knowledge of different disciplines and make it useful for communication studies.
The paper addresses this research gap by selecting various disciplines and identifying aspects involved in communicating the risks of infection. Relevant
linguistic aspects are (1) the use of metaphors, comparisons and analogies, (2) structuring of information and (3) specialist jargon and expert-layperson
communication (Nerlich, Elliot & Larson, 2012; Knutsen, Kvam, Langemeyer, Parianaou & Solfjeld, 2012). Significant psychological aspects include (1)
the cognitive processing of risk information and (2) the presentation (conditional probabilities versus relative risks) and the literacy of statistical health
information (Bammer & Smithson, 2008; Gigerenzer, Gassmaier, Kurz-Milcke, Schwartz &Woloshin, 2007). Overall, this paper aims to contribute to the fur‑
ther development of a communication of risks of infection in the light of public health crisis. Our results testify to the importance of connecting heteroge‑
neous and dispersed knowledge and systematizing the concrete findings using the elements inherent in the communication process. Finally, this paper will
contribute to an interdisciplinary and evidence-based risk and crisis communication. Bammer, G., & Smithson, M. (2008). Uncertainty and Risk: Multidisci‑
plinary Perspectives. London: Earthscan. Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier,W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., &Woloshin, S. (2007). Helping Doctors and Patients
Make Sense of Health Statistics. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 8(2), 53–96. Knutsen, K. P., Kvam, S., Langemeyer, P., Parianaou, P. & Solfjeld, K.
(2012). (Eds). Narratives of risk: interdisciplinary studies. Münster: Waxmann. Nerlich, B., Elliott, R., & Larson, B. (2012). Communicating biological sciences:
Ethical and metaphorical dimensions. Farnham: Ashgate.