WP4 Communica.on analysis. Murcia, 30 May 2014

Transcription

1 WP4 Communica.on analysis Murcia, 30 May 2014

2 Status Quo Deliverable submi=ed by December 2013 Currently working on publica.ons Communica.on Analysis based on Literature review Iden.fica.on of stakeholders Interviews with key stakeholders Content analysis of offline and online debates about A/ H1N1 Murcia, 30 May 2014

3 Overview Quan.ta.ve survey Content analysis Comparison of press releases and newspaper ar.cles Comparison of newspaper ar.cles and online discussions Summary Murcia, 30 May 2014

4 SURVEY Murcia, 30 May 2014

5 Research Ques.ons RQ1: Which status do communica.ons measures have in the process of managing health crises? RQ2: Which communica.on deficits have been recognized by stakeholders in dealing with health crises? a) In general? b) In the case of H1N1? RQ3: Which role should the EU play in coordina.ng crisis communica.on? RQ4: What role should social media play? 5

6 Communica.on measures Communica.on measures are generally seen as very important in case of a health emergency: Informing the public via campaigns, hotlines, websites or press releases is considered as a task of par.cular relevance 63,8 % of the organiza.ons state having guidelines or a specific process for crisis management the majority considers these guidelines to be rather or absolutely helpful in case of a health emergency 60,8 % have trained communica.on experts for managing a possible crisis 6

7 Problems with human resources Means: Factors for effective crisis communication & necessary improvement n = 59; mean values based on a scale of 1 = not important at all to 5 = very important In your opinion, what are the crucial factors for effective health crisis communication? In which areas of crisis communication, do you think, your organization needs to improve? 7

8 Deficits during the H1N1 pandemic Time pressure is most important problem (in %) n = 66; multiple answers possible; checked/not checked What were communication problems your organization had to face during the H1N1 pandemic? 8

9 EU Coordina.on Uncertainty concerning stronger involvement of the EU as a coordinator in crisis situa.ons On the one hand the stakeholders think ü that the EU could provide useful informa.on about the situa.on in other European countries ü that the EU can prevent dissemina.on of infec.ons more effec.vely than single countries alone On the other hand crises are seen as being influenced by cultural differences and thus have to be addressed on a na.onal level respondents fear excessive bureaucracy and (even more) confusion about responsibili.es 9

10 Geographical level of informa.on sources National information particularly important n= 101; multiple answers possible On which geographical levels are the organizations located you receive information from? 10

11 Online communica.on: important, but low usage of SM Means: Usage of Communication Channels n = 67; mean values based on a scale of 1 = never to 5 = very often How often does your organization use the following communication channels during health emergencies? 11

12 Social Media: Be=er communica.on, but unpredictable? Majority of the organiza.ons think that social media ü offer be=er access to specific target groups ü allow quick and up- to- date communica.on ü help to understand the concerns and ques.ons of the public Nevertheless the organiza.ons fear unpredictable consequences Majority is afraid that posts and discussions on social media get beyond control and lead to misinforma.on this may explain the low use of social media tools during health emergencies 12

13 Survey: Summary Communica.ons measures are taken seriously and considered as important in health crises In spite of exis.ng guidelines and communica.on plans, organiza.ons perceive needs for improvement: Scaling up human resources Be=er training facili.es, especially on presenta.on of risk informa.on, monitoring and evalua.on Combina.on of EU coordina.on and informa.on distribu.on via na.onal ins.tu.ons Social media competence 13

14 CONTENT ANALYSIS: PRESS RELEASES à PRESS COVERAGE Murcia, 30 May 2014

15 Research ques.ons (1) How do press releases and press coverage depict the H1N1 issue? a. Volume of informa.on b. Content of informa.on c. Presenta.on style of informa.on? (2) Did the media amplify risk informa.on? (3) Is their a difference betweeen countries with different vaccina.on and mortality levels? 15

16 Distribu.on of ar.cles over.me N=2320

17 Main topic Percent χ 2 (9, N = 2314) = 75.56, p <.001, Cramér s V =.18

18 Frames Percent χ 2 (6, N = 2314) = 50.90, p <.001, Cramér s V =.15

19 Risk Amplifica.on Press releases (n=243) Quality papers (n=1243) Tabloid papers (n=834) χ² Cramér s V p Conflict 4.1 a 20.4 b 15.5 c <.001 Damage 43.6 a 60.1 b 54.3 c <.001 Death 21.4 a 33.0 b 37.5 c <.001 Alarming.tle 14.4 a 29.6 b 41.4 c <.001 Alarm. ar.cle 5.8 a 20.8 b 30.5 c <.001 Emo.onaliza.on 4.5 a 27.4 b 35.5 c <.001 Personifica.on 32.9 a 71.0 b 76.9 c <.001 Note. N = 2320, df = 2; Only percentage of pieces that mention/contain the attributes are shown; a, b and c mark subgroups differing on the.05-significance level (Z-test); equal letters within each row mean that subgroups do not differ;

20 Informa.on pa=erns Percent χ 2 (2, N = 2319) =.08, p =.96, Cramér s V =.01; Clusteranalysen (Kombination aus hierarchischer Clusteranalyse (Ward-method, Distanzmass: Quadrierte Euclidische Distanz) und K-Means Cluster); basierend auf Ursachen, Individuellen Präventionsmassnahmen, Politischen Massnahmen, Konsequenzen, Bewertung der Impfung

21 Informa.on content Percent Percent χ2 (1, N = 1653) = 7.38, p =.117, Cramér s V =.05; Impfrate niedrig (0.6 und 4.0% der Bevölkerung): Tschechien, Italien, mittel ( %): Frankreich, Deutschland, Portugal, Rumänien, hoch (27.1 und 59.0%): Spanien, Schweden χ2 (2, N = 2076) = 48.71, p <.001, Cramér s V =.15; Todesrate niedrig ( Todesfälle/ Einwohner): Belgien, Frankreich, Deutschland, Italien, Rumänien, Spanien, Schweden; hoch ( Todesfälle/ Einwohner): Tschechien, Portugal, UK

22 Summary: Content analysis I Different peaks in communica.on of press releases and media Amplifica.on of risks in press coverage as compared to press releases (more conflict, more drama.za.on, more risk related frames) High rate of ar.cles and press releases lacking background informa.on (mostly dissemina.on) Remarkable differences between country groups (vaccina.on and mortality rate) à Coincidence of ar.cles with more detailed informa.on, combined use of fear appeals and self efficacy, alarming and reassurring ar.cles in countries with lower mortality and higher vaccina.on rate (Limita.on: no proven causality) Results underline exis.ng guidelines for crisis communica.on and persuasion and need for improvement in mee.ng the needs of the media 22

23 CONTENT ANALYSIS: PRESS COVERAGE à ONLINE FORUMS Murcia, 30 May 2014

24 Research ques.ons RQ1: How did European Internet users discuss the H1N1 pandemic? a) Which topics, frames, H1N1 related informa.on, and measures are prevalent in the discussion threads? b) In how far did discussion threads express uncertainty? RQ2: How do discussion threads and press coverage differ regarding their discussion of the H1N1 pandemic?

25 Main topic % Pearson χ 2 (9, N = 2213) = 87.15, p <.001

26 Frames % Pearson χ 2 (6, N = 2213) = , p <.001

27 Informa.on about H1N1 % (mentioned) Pearson χ 2 (1, N = 2213): general information: χ 2 = 5.25, p <.05, causes: χ 2 =.19, n.s., preventive measures: χ 2 =33.18, p <.001, policy measures: χ 2 =,41.40 p <.001, vaccination: χ 2 =23.47, p <.001, treatment: χ 2 =3.83, n.s., consequences swine flu: χ 2 = 1.37, n.s., consequences of vaccination: χ 2 = 31.15, p <.001, consequences treatment: χ 2 = 6.71, p <.05, consequences policy: χ 2 = 8.69, p <.01

28 Individual preven.ve measures % (mentioned) Pearson χ 2 (1, N = 2213): vaccination: χ 2 = 26.28, p <.001, contact doctor: χ 2 = 72.87, p <.001, hygiene measures: χ 2 =.94, n.s., avoiding close contact: χ 2 =.36, n.s., avoiding crowded places: χ 2 = 1.38, n.s., keeping distance if infected: χ 2 =.13, n.s., avoiding countries: χ 2 =.51, n.s., public transportation: χ 2 =.02, n.s., taking precautions traveling back: χ 2 =.71, n.s., right sneezing: χ 2 = 1.96, n.s.

29 Evalua.on of vaccina.on % Pearson χ 2 (3, N = 2213) = 76.10, p <.001

30 Summary: Content analysis II Main topics in forums differ from coverage: general health aspects and medical measures Scep.c view on vaccina.on in line with the vaccina.on hesitancy Uncertainty plays an important role in online discussions Ø Interpersonal public communica.on mirrors observed uncertain.es and vaccina.on skep.cism in public during the H1N1 crisis Ø Thus, on-.me monitoring of forum discussions during health crises can provide insight into public reac.ons and needs Ø Furthermore, forums can also serve as a communica.on channel spreading informa.on people are in need of further via interpersonal communica.on

31 SUMMARY Murcia, 30 May 2014

32 Summary & Implica.ons Stakeholders are aware of the importance of crisis communica.on but hesitant to a=ribute weaknesses to themselves and to use social media Press releases and media reacted to the need of informa.on, however press releases tend to overemphasize poli.cal measures, more informa.on is needed media and public are looking for Media tend to amplify risks ( media pandemic ), especially during vaccina.on phase à more press releases in such.mes needed Online discussions forums provide great opportuni.es to monitor public needs and sorrows and get into direct contact with the public Murcia, 30 May 2014

33 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Murcia, 30 May 2014