Communication strategies and media discourses in the age of COVID-19: an urgent need for action.

Identified in December 2019 in China, the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) has been declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). Pandemics share features that increase fear. While some fear can stimulate preventive health behaviors, extreme fear can lead to adverse psychological and behavioral response. The media play a major role shaping these responses. When dealing with a PHEIC, the authorities' communication strategies are embedded in a multilevel governance and a highly hierarchal system, which adds another layer of complexity. Carrying out more 'real-world research' is crucial to generate evidence relating to the psychosocial and behavioral aspects involved during the COVID-19 pandemic and how it is shaped by authorities and media discourses. Interdisciplinary research and international collaborations could contribute to improve our understanding and management of risk information. Emerging from a socio-ecological perspective, future research must integrate multilevel analytical elements, to ensure triangulation of evidence and co-constructing robust recommendations. A mixed-method approach should be privileged to address these issues. At the micro-level, a population-based survey could be conducted in various jurisdictions to assess and compare psychosocial issues according to sociocultural groups. Then, a quantitative/qualitative discourse analysis of the media could be performed. Finally, a network analysis could allow assessing how official information flows and circulates across levels of governance. The COVID-19 represents an opportunity to evaluate the impacts of information/communication strategy and misinformation on various cultural and socioeconomic groups, providing important lessons that could be applied to future health emergencies and disasters.

Principalism in public health decision making in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic lead scientists and governmental authorities to issue clinical and public health recommendations based on progressively emerging evidence and expert opinions and many of these fast-tracked to peer-reviewed publications. Concerns were raised on scientific quality and generalizability of this emerging evidence. MAIN ARGUMENT: However, this way acting is not entirely new and often public health decisions are based on flawed and ambiguous evidence. Thus, to better guide decisions in these circumstances, in this article we argue that there is a need to follow fundamental principles in order to guide best public health practices. We purpose the usefulness of the framework of principalism in public which has been proved useful in real life conditions as a guide in the absence of reliable evidence. CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended the implementation of these principles in an integrated manner adopting an holistic system approach to health policies adapted to specificities of local contexts.

Largest measles epidemic in North America in a decade--Quebec, Canada, 2011: contribution of susceptibility, serendipity, and superspreading events.

BACKGROUND: The largest measles epidemic in North America in the last decade, occurred in 2011 in Quebec, Canada, where rates of 1- and 2-dose vaccine coverage among children 3 years of age were 95%-97% and 90%, respectively, with 3%-5% unvaccinated. METHODS: Case patients identified through passive surveillance and outbreak investigation were contacted to determine clinical course, vaccination status, and possible source of infection. RESULTS: There were 21 measles importations and 725 cases. A superspreading event triggered by 1 importation resulted in sustained transmission and 678 cases. The overall incidence was 9.1 per 100,000; the highest incidence was in adolescents 12-17 years old (75.6 per 100,000), who comprised 56% of case patients. Among adolescents, 22% had received 2 vaccine doses. Outbreak investigation showed this proportion to have been an underestimate; active case finding identified 130% more cases among 2-dose recipients. Two-dose recipients had milder illness and a significantly lower risk of hospitalization than those who were unvaccinated or single-dose recipients. CONCLUSIONS: A chance superspreading event revealed an overall level of immunity barely above the elimination threshold when unexpected vulnerability in 2-dose recipients was taken into account. Unvaccinated individuals remain the immunization priority, but a better understanding of susceptibility in 2-dose recipients is needed to define effective interventions if elimination is to be achieved.