Evidence mapPaperPMID 37811673Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2023

Communication to promote and support physical distancing for COVID-19 prevention and control: a rapid review

Rebecca E Ryan, Charlotte Silke, Anne Parkhill, Ariane Virgona, Bronwen Merner, Shauna Hurley, Louisa Walsh, Caroline de Moel-Mandel, Lina Schonfeld, Adrian Gk Edwards and 9 more

Open access · greenAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Rebecca E RyanCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Charlotte SilkeUNESCO Child & Family Research Centre, School of Political Science & Sociology, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Anne ParkhillCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Ariane VirgonaCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Bronwen MernerCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Shauna HurleyCochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Melbourne, Australia.
Louisa WalshCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Caroline de Moel-MandelSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Lina SchonfeldCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Adrian Gk EdwardsWales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, Cardiff University, 8th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN , UK.
Jessica KaufmanCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
Alison CooperWales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, Cardiff University, 8th floor Neuadd Meirionnydd, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14 4XN , UK.
Rachel Kar Yee ChungMelbourne, Australia.
Karla SoloGRADE McMaster & Cochrane Canada, Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University , Hamilton, Ontario , Canada.
Margaret HellardBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Gian Luca Di TannaDepartment of Business Economics, Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Southern Switzerland, Lugano, Switzerland.
Alisa PedranaBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Freya SaichBurnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia.
Sophie HillCentre for Health Communication and Participation, School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia.
La Trobe University · AUBurnet Institute · AUCardiff University · GBImpact · CAOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEThe George Institute for Global Health · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis review is an update of a rapid review undertaken in 2020 to identify relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control. The rapid review was published when little was known about transmission, treatment or future vaccination, and when physical distancing measures (isolation, quarantine, contact tracing, crowd avoidance, work and school measures) were the cornerstone of public health responses globally. This updated review includes more recent evidence to extend what we know about effective pandemic public health communication. This includes considerations of changes needed over time to maintain responsiveness to pandemic transmission waves, the (in)equities and variable needs of groups within communities due to the pandemic, and highlights again the critical role of effective communication as integral to the public health response.

objectivesTo update the evidence on the question 'What are relevant, feasible and effective communication approaches to promote acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing measures for COVID-19 prevention and control?', our primary focus was communication approaches to promote and support acceptance, uptake and adherence to physical distancing. SECONDARY

objectiveto explore and identify key elements of effective communication for physical distancing measures for different (diverse) populations and groups. SEARCH

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library databases from inception, with searches for this update including the period 1 January 2020 to 18 August 2021. Systematic review and study repositories and grey literature sources were searched in August 2021 and guidelines identified for the eCOVID19 Recommendations Map were screened (November 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Guidelines or reviews focusing on communication (information, education, reminders, facilitating decision-making, skills acquisition, supporting behaviour change, support, involvement in decision-making) related to physical distancing measures for prevention and/or control of COVID-19 or selected other diseases (sudden acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), influenza, Ebola virus disease (EVD) or tuberculosis (TB)) were included. New evidence was added to guidelines, reviews and primary studies included in the 2020 review. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Methods were based on the original rapid review, using methods developed by McMaster University and informed by Cochrane rapid review guidance. Screening, data extraction, quality assessment and synthesis were conducted by one author and checked by a second author. Synthesis of results was conducted using modified framework analysis, with themes from the original review used as an initial framework. MAIN

resultsThis review update includes 68 studies, with 17 guidelines and 20 reviews added to the original 31 studies. Synthesis identified six major themes, which can be used to inform policy and decision-making related to planning and implementing communication about a public health emergency and measures to protect the community. Theme 1: Strengthening public trust and countering misinformation: essential foundations for effective public health communication Recognising the key role of public trust is essential. Working to build and maintain trust over time underpins the success of public health communications and, therefore, the effectiveness of public health prevention measures. Theme 2: Two-way communication: involving communities to improve the dissemination, accessibility and acceptability of information Two-way communication (engagement) with the public is needed over the course of a public health emergency: at first, recognition of a health threat (despite uncertainties), and regularly as public health measures are introduced or adjusted. Engagement needs to be embedded at all stages of the response and inform tailoring of communications and implementation of public health measures over time. Theme 3: Development of and preparation for public communication: target audience, equity and tailoring Communication and information must be tailored to reach all groups within populations, and explicitly consider existing inequities and the needs of disadvantaged groups, including those who are underserved, vulnerable, from diverse cultural or language groups, or who have lower educational attainment. Awareness that implementing public health measures may magnify existing or emerging inequities is also needed in response planning, enactment and adjustment over time. Theme 4: Public communication features: content, timing and duration, delivery Public communication needs to be based on clear, consistent, actionable and timely (up-to-date) information about preventive measures, including the benefits (whether for individual, social groupings or wider society), harms (likewise) and rationale for use, and include information about supports available to help follow recommended measures. Communication needs to occur through multiple channels and/or formats to build public trust and reach more of the community. Theme 5: Supporting behaviour change at individual and population levels Supporting implementation of public health measures with practical supports and services (e.g. essential supplies, financial support) is critical. Information about available supports must be widely disseminated and well understood. Supports and communication related to them require flexibility and tailoring to explicitly consider community needs, including those of vulnerable groups. Proactively monitoring and countering stigma related to preventive measures (e.g. quarantine) is also necessary to support adherence. Theme 6: Fostering and sustaining receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication Efforts to foster and sustain public receptiveness and responsiveness to public health communication are needed throughout a public health emergency. Trust, acceptance and behaviours change over time, and communication needs to be adaptive and responsive to these changing needs. Ongoing community engagement efforts should inform communication and public health response measures. AUTHORS'

conclusionsImplications for practice Evidence highlights the critical role of communication throughout a public health emergency. Like any intervention, communication can be done well or poorly, but the consequences of poor communication during a pandemic may mean the difference between life and death. The approaches to effective communication identified in this review can be used by policymakers and decision-makers, working closely with communication teams, to plan, implement and adjust public communications over the course of a public health emergency like the COVID-19 pandemic. Implications for research Despite massive growth in research during the COVID-19 period, gaps in the evidence persist and require high-quality, meaningful research. This includes investigating the experiences of people at heightened COVID-19 risk, and identifying barriers to implementing public communication and protective health measures particular to lower- and middle-income countries, and how to overcome these.

Indexed as

COVID-19CommunicationHumansPandemicsPhysical DistancingPublic Health

Identifiers

PMID37811673
PMCPMC10561351
OpenAlexW4387440010

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.