How did we react to the pandemic? There are those who have experienced an excessive amplification in the perception of risks and consequently the pervasive refusal of any form of contact with others and there are those who have flatly denied the existence of Covid19. In short, there were different visions in dealing with a new and complex situation.
What is certain is that what was most needed was probably balance. From everyone. And certainly the information may not have helped in this sense, because the “infodemic” phenomenon occurred which certainly had a greater impact on those who may have had greater difficulty understanding what was happening. Research from the University of Pisa confirms this hypothesis, showing how the regional plans have been lacking in inclusiveness and management of the infodemic. The study published in BMC Public Health compared the regional pandemic plans approved in the period 2021-2023 with the best practices validated at an international level
What worked and what didn’t
Three critical points emerge from the Italian regional pandemic plans:
- lack of inclusiveness and equity,
- of involvement and participation of citizens and communities,
- infodemic management.
However, the transition towards a flexible and resilient communication model was positive, capable of functioning even in situations of uncertainty, thanks to units dedicated to coordinating information flows and the provision of differentiated messages for citizens and healthcare professionals.
The research, entitled “Mapping risk communication practices in public health emergencies: a scoping review and comparison with Italian regional pandemic plans”was conducted by researchers from the Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery of the University of Pisa, led by Caterina Rizzo, professor of General and Applied Hygiene, as part of the CreSP project – Communicating risk in public health emergencies, financed by the CCM – Ministry of Health.
The results highlight that, although the concept of emergency risk communication is well developed in the scientific literature, its practical implementation varies considerably between different levels of governance. The misalignment between scientific recommendations and institutional frameworks underlines the need for a more integrated and standardized national approach, such as the one that can be found in the “National Pandemic Risk Communication Plan”, adopted at the State-Regions Conference, which outlines an innovative strategic and procedural framework in which the concepts of inclusiveness, infodemic management and community engagement are structurally rooted and made explicit through the definition of roles, responsibilities and dedicated formal structures.
Thorough examination
The study compared the regional pandemic plans for the three-year period 2021-2023 with the international scientific literature on emergency risk communication. Over 10 thousand articles were evaluated and 173 were included in the direct comparison with the documents available in the Italian regions at the time of the research. The results of our study highlight the urgent need to overcome a purely institutional and one-way communication model, which risks leaving the most vulnerable segments of the population excluded precisely in the most critical moments.
“Vulnerable populations, including those with low literacy levels, language barriers or limited digital access, remain at greater risk of exclusion from emergency communication channels, highlighting the need for communication strategies adapted to different cultural, linguistic and digital contexts”
the researchers write.
Citizen involvement and participation, however, remain marginal in the regional pandemic plans examined, which still conceptualise risk communication predominantly as a unidirectional and top-down institutional process. Finally, only theoretical hints on the fight against disinformation were identified in the analyzed plans.
Preparation and improvement
“The poor integration of infodemic management into official plans contrasts with the growing attention this topic has received in international public health practice. Although solid evidence on the effectiveness of these strategies remains limited, the integration of infodemic management capabilities into preparedness systems can strengthen the capacity of health systems to anticipate and respond to information-related risks during health emergencies. In this context, strategies to counter misinformation should be institutionalized through collaboration with fact-checking organizations, media outlets and actors of civil society”
we read in the study from the University of Pisa.
“To successfully face future epidemic challenges, a preparedness approach capable of stably integrating infodemic management, social listening and the active involvement of citizens within public health infrastructures is essential. Only through measurable indicators and targeted training of professionals in the area will we be able to build a system that is truly resilient, fair and capable of maintaining the trust of the community”
comments Caterina Rizzo.
