Moral panic about "covidiots" in Canadian newspaper coverage of COVID-19.

Moral panics are moments of intense and widespread public concern about a specific group, whose behaviour is deemed a moral threat to the collective. We examined public health guidelines in the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canadian newspaper editorials, columns and letters to the editor, to evaluate how perceived threats to public interests were expressed and amplified through claims-making processes. Normalization of infection control behaviours has led to a moral panic about lack of compliance with preventive measures, which is expressed in opinion discourse. Following public health guidelines was construed as a moral imperative and a civic duty, while those who failed to comply with these guidelines were stigmatized, shamed as "covidiots," and discursively constructed as a threat to public health and moral order. Unlike other moral panics in which there is social consensus about what needs to be done, Canadian commentators presented a variety of possible solutions, opening a debate around infection surveillance, privacy, trust, and punishment. Public health communication messaging needs to be clear, to both facilitate compliance and provide the material conditions necessary to promote infection prevention behaviour, and reduce the stigmatization of certain groups and hostile reactions towards them.

Communicating scientific uncertainty in a rapidly evolving situation: a framing analysis of Canadian coverage in early days of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought the production of scientific knowledge onto the public agenda in real-time. News media and commentators analysed the successes and failures of the pandemic response in real-time, bringing the process of scientific inquiry, which is also fraught with uncertainty, onto the public agenda. We examine how Canadian newspapers framed scientific uncertainty in their initial coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic and how journalists made sense of the scientific process. METHODS: We conducted a framing analysis of 1143 news stories and opinion during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a qualitative analysis software, our analysis focused, first, on how scientific uncertainty was framed in hard news and opinion discourse (editorial, op-ed). Second, we compared how specialist health and science reporters discussed scientific evidence versus non-specialist reporters in hard news and columns. RESULTS: Uncertainty emerged as a "master frame" across the sample, and four additional framing strategies were used by reporters and commentators when covering the pandemic: (1), evidence -focusing on presence or absence of it-; (2) transparency and leadership -focusing on the pandemic response-; (3) duelling experts - highlighting disagreement among experts or criticizing public health decisions for not adhering to expert recommendations-; and (4) mixed messaging -criticizing public health communication efforts. While specialist journalists understood that scientific knowledge evolves and the process is fraught with uncertainty, non-specialist reporters and commentators expressed frustration over changing public health guidelines, leading to the politicization of the pandemic response and condemnation of elected officials' decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Managing scientific uncertainty in evolving science-policy situations requires timely and clear communication. Public health officials and political leaders need to provide clear and consistent messages and access to data regarding infection prevention guidelines. Public health officials should quickly engage in communication course corrections if original messages are missing the intended mark, and clearly explain the shift. Finally, public health communicators should be aware of and more responsive to a variety of media reporters, who will bring different interpretative frames to their reporting. More care and effort are needed in these communication engagements to minimize inconsistencies, uncertainty, and politicization.

Vaccine Hesitancy: In Search of the Risk Communication Comfort Zone.

INTRODUCTION: This paper reports the findings of a national online survey to parents of children aged 5 and younger. The objectives of the study were to assess parental understanding of childhood immunizations, identify sources of information that they trust for vaccine-related content, assess where parents with young children stand on the key issues in the public debate about vaccination, and identify which risk communication messages are most effective for influencing the behaviours of vaccine hesitant parents. METHODS: A total of 1,000 surveys (closed and open-ended questions) were administered in November 2015 using the Angus Reid Forum Panel, a key consumer panel consisting of approximately 150,000 Canadian adults aged 18 and older, spread across all geographic regions of Canada. RESULTS: Approximately 92% of the Canadian parents surveyed consider vaccines safe and effective, and trust doctors and public health officials to provide timely and credible vaccine-related information. However, a concerning number of them either believe or are uncertain whether there is a link between vaccines and autism (28%), worry that vaccines might seriously harm their children (27%), or believe the pharmaceutical industry is behind the push for mandatory immunization (33%). Moreover, despite the common assumption that social media are becoming the go-to source of health news and information, most parents still rely on traditional media and official government websites for timely and credible information about vaccines and vaccine preventable diseases, particularly during community-based disease outbreaks. Finally, parents reported high levels of support for pro-vaccine messaging that has been demonstrated in previous research to have little to no positive impact on behaviour change, and may even be counterproductive. DISCUSSION: The study's results are highly relevant in a context where public health officials are expending significant resources to increase rates of childhood immunization and combat vaccine hesitancy. The data offer insight into where parents stand on the political and public debate about mandatory vaccination, what aspects of vaccine science remain uncertain to them, which media and institutional sources they use and trust to navigate the health information environment, how they look for information and whom they trust during periods of health emergency or crisis, and which communication strategies are considered most effective in persuading vaccine hesitant parents to immunize their children.

Indigenous populations health protection: a Canadian perspective.

The disproportionate effects of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic on many Canadian Aboriginal communities have drawn attention to the vulnerability of these communities in terms of health outcomes in the face of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. Exploring the particular challenges facing these communities is essential to improving public health planning. In alignment with the objectives of the Pandemic Influenza Outbreak Research Modelling (Pan-InfORM) team, a Canadian public health workshop was held at the Centre for Disease Modelling (CDM) to: (i) evaluate post-pandemic research findings; (ii) identify existing gaps in knowledge that have yet to be addressed through ongoing research and collaborative activities; and (iii) build upon existing partnerships within the research community to forge new collaborative links with Aboriginal health organizations. The workshop achieved its objectives in identifying main research findings and emerging information post pandemic, and highlighting key challenges that pose significant impediments to the health protection and promotion of Canadian Aboriginal populations. The health challenges faced by Canadian indigenous populations are unique and complex, and can only be addressed through active engagement with affected communities. The academic research community will need to develop a new interdisciplinary framework, building upon concepts from 'Communities of Practice', to ensure that the research priorities are identified and targeted, and the outcomes are translated into the context of community health to improve policy and practice.

Responsiveness of the Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17).

OBJECTIVE: The Effective Consumer Scale (EC-17) comprises 17 items measuring the main skills and behaviors people need to effectively manage their healthcare. We tested the responsiveness of the EC-17. METHODS: Participants, in 2 waves of a 6-week Arthritis Self-Management Program (ASMP) from Arthritis Ireland, received a questionnaire at the first and last week of the weekly ASMP. The questionnaire included the EC-17 and 10 other measures for arthritis. Deficits, mean change, and standard deviations were calculated at baseline and Week 6. The EC-17 scores were compared to the Arthritis Self-Efficacy (ASE) and Patient Activation Measure (PAM) scales. Results were presented at OMERACT 9. RESULTS: There is some overlap between the EC-17 and the ASE and PAM; however, most items of greatest deficit in the EC-17 are not covered by those scales. In 327 participants representing both intervention waves (2006 and 2007), the EC-17 was more efficient than the ASE but less efficient than the PAM for detecting improvements after the ASMP, and was moderately correlated with the PAM. CONCLUSION: The EC-17 appears to measure different skills and attributes than the ASE and PAM. Discussions with participants at OMERACT 9 agreed that it is worthwhile to measure the skills and attributes of an effective consumer, and supported the development of an intervention (such as proposed online decision aids) that would include education in the categories in the EC-17.

Understanding facilitators of and barriers to health promotion practice.

The health promotion best practices literature is imbued with hope for knowledge mobilization, enhanced practice, and improved population health. Given constrained medical care systems, health promotion is key to reducing the significant burden of chronic disease. However, we have seen little evidence of change. This article investigates facilitators of, and barriers to, three stages of health promotion practice in public health organizations, interagency coalitions, and volunteer committees. The article focuses not on what works but why it does or does not, drawing on five case studies within the Canadian Heart Health Initiative. Results indicate that the presence or absence of appropriately committed and/or skilled people, funds and/or resources, and priority and/or interest are the most common factors affecting all stages of health promotion practice. The article extends the literature on internal and external factors affecting health promotion and highlights strategic influences to consider in support of effective health promotion practice.