Free Essay: Effective Science Communication During the Coronavirus Pandemic

Public and private investors in the health sector acknowledge the significance of scientific communication during a health crisis such as the Coronavirus pandemic; therefore, try to provide guidelines to prevent the spread of the infection (Holmes et al., 2009). Early public health communication focused on getting citizens to accept new therapeutic techniques (Holmes et al., 2009). However, some people do not follow the procedures because they analyze the impacts of the pandemic. Effective science communication bridges the gap between scientists' evaluation and the public's understanding, which is essential for implementing corrective measures to eradicate the disease (Linas, 2019).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The technological advancement and growth of social media presented healthcare professionals with an opportunity to share crucial information but created challenges due to the availability of misleading information (Linas, 2019). This paper reviews the impacts of good and bad science communication on public health. Access to accurate and transparent medical information helps the public understand the risks and consequences of their actions in a health crisis; thus, act according to the provided guidelines.

Discussion

The Coronavirus pandemic poses a testing period for scientists, healthcare providers, journalists, and federal governments to provide vital information to ensure public safety. The global scale impacts of the virus mean the world population relies on their guidelines, and misleading information could potentially cause more socio-economic harm. The World Health Organization (WHO) is responsible for guiding nations in this period and has adopted scientific communication techniques that are imperative for accuracy. Good messages consider three factors: an appropriate communicator that shows empathy, the design which focuses on the audience and objective, and perfect timing or frequency (Holmes et al., 2009). Some organizations have hidden agendas such as profitable marketing of health products, selling stories to improve ratings, and political influence; hence, they may provide invalid information (Holmes et al., 2009). The following examples exhibit cases of good and bad science communication and their consequences.

Medical doctors from the United States (US) authored the article "How should US hospitals prepare for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)?" and was published in the American College of Physicians (ACP) journal. The article targeted health organizations and proposed new strategies of preparedness to handle the influx of Coronavirus patients. The doctors presented potential solutions to inadequate bed capacity, equipment, and healthcare personnel during the pandemic (Chopra et al., 2020).

According to Chopra et al. (2020), hospitals should consider "safe locations and staffing plans that separate vulnerable patients from COVID-19 activities." However, the authors should have regarded federally owned hospitals that may lack sufficient funds to implement the strategies. The article publishing before the pandemic in an online medical journal ensured it reached the targeted audience; thus, displaying effective scientific communication. Many hospitals in the US followed the guidelines and were ready for a large number of patients.

The American Psychological Association (APA) published the "Traumatic Stress in the Age of COVID-19" article by psychologists, Horesh, and Brown. The study focused on the mental health of the world's population, especially people with traumatic stress during the Coronavirus pandemic. The authors aimed to empower communities to offer moral support in this time of need (Horesh & Brown, 2020). Moreover, supporting one another is essential to eradicating the disease and maintaining good mental health.

Horesh and Brown (2020) claimed they wanted to show "how COVID-19 is revealing critical areas in which our field can adapt to more effectively contribute to mental health response." The research provided adaptive psychological methods critical to the mental wellness of people with traumatic stress. Unfortunately, the lack of elaborative information for ordinary people creates challenges in the utilization of the techniques in homes. Regardless, the article has effective scientific communication because fellow psychologists reviewed and approved the research; hence, the APA published it. Medical professionals now have access to new techniques that ensure the mental well-being of patients and the public.

Health ethics scholars wrote the "Responding to COVID-19" article, which is available in The Hastings Center Report. The paper targeted healthcare providers and national governments intending to promote ethical and legal health administration during the Coronavirus pandemic (Gostin et al., 2020). Hospitals are facing numerous challenges due to the increasing number of patients, and lack of resources. Therefore, healthcare providers may resort to illegal and unethically practices for personal gain.

Gostin et al. (2020) suggested that "the president or governors could also call in the military, National Guard, or Army Corps of Engineers for assistance." However, the proposed strategy is unreliable because it depends on the national and state government’s decisions. Furthermore, the publication may not reach the target audience of political leaders as the source focuses on medical issues; thus, the report has weak science communication. Healthcare services’ marketization has divided the scale of ethical and legal issues between private and public healthcare providers. Patients that can afford health insurance cover get the best care while the others settle for the second-best therapy. Nonetheless, the public sector has received assistance from non-governmental organizations.

The ACP journal published the article "A War on Two Fronts," authored by medical doctors in the US. The authors targeted oncology specialists and aimed to improve cancer patients’ care during the Coronavirus pandemic (Kutikov et al., 2020). A Successful intervention would require healthcare professionals to carry out regular diagnosis, active treatment, and do frequent follow-ups to ensure the safety of cancer patients.

According to Kutikov et al. (2020) research, "the risk for viral dissemination cannot be quantified and remains largely unknown." Therefore, the study’s findings are uncertain due to the lack of comprehensive information on the Coronavirus. A complete report on how to counter both diseases will take more time; thus, the article has weak scientific communication. Oncology specialists cannot help patients with inadequate research information. However, the authors provided strict measures to protect the patients from the virus.

Conclusion

In summary, the implementation of effective scientific communication is integral in getting the target audience to understand their roles in a health crisis. Articles with good science messages managed to initiate positive responses that improved the health and safety of the public. Therefore, healthcare investors need to adopt effective science communication techniques to ensure a healthy community.

References

Chopra, V., Toner, E., Waldhorn, R., & Washer, L. (2020). How should U.S. hospitals prepare for Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)? Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(9), 621–622. https://doi.org/10.7326/m20-0907

Gostin, L. O., Friedman, E. A., & Wetter, S. A. (2020). Responding to Covid-19: How to navigate a public health emergency legally and ethically. Hastings Center Report, 50(2), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.1090

Holmes, B. J., Henrich, N., Hancock, S., & Lestou, V. (2009). Communicating with the public during health crises: Experts' experiences and opinions. Journal of Risk Research, 12(6), 793–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802648486

Horesh, D., & Brown, A. D. (2020). Traumatic stress in the age of COVID-19: A call to close critical gaps and adapt to new realities. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(4), 331–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000592

Kutikov, A., Weinberg, D. S., Edelman, M. J., Horwitz, E. M., Uzzo, R. G., & Fisher, R. I. (2020). A war on two fronts: Cancer care in the time of COVID-19. Annals of Internal Medicine, 172(11), 756–758. https://doi.org/10.7326/m20-1133

Linas, B. S. (2019). Communicating with the public is key to public health. American Journal of Public Health, 109(4), 548–549. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2019.304978