Inclusive Crisis Communication in a Pandemic Context: A Rapid Review.

Background: Crisis communication might not reach non-native speakers or persons with low literacy levels, a low socio-economic status, and/or an auditory or visual impairments as easily as it would reach other citizens. The aim of this rapid review was to synthesize the evidence on strategies used to improve inclusive pandemic-related crisis communication in terms of form, channel, and outreach. Methods: After a comprehensive search and a rigorous screening and quality assessment exercise, twelve comparative studies were selected for inclusion in this review. Data were analyzed and represented by means of a structured reporting of available effects using narrative tables. Results: The findings indicate that a higher message frequency (on any channel) may lead to a lower recall rate, audio-visual productions and tailored messages prove to be valuable under certain conditions, and primary healthcare practitioners appear to be the most trusted source of information for most groups of citizens. Trust levels were higher for citizens who were notified in advance of potential exceptions to the rule in the effect of preventive and curative measures promoted. Conclusions: This review contributes to combatting information inequality by providing evidence on how to remove the sensorial, linguistic, cultural, and textual barriers experienced by minorities and other underserved target audiences in COVID-19-related governmental crisis communication in response to the societal, health-related costs of ineffective communication outreach.

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening.

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.