Explainer: how to cut through to anti-vaxxers and anti-fluoriders
A public health expert shares six ways to debunk the 'alternative facts' of public health risks. Dr Claire Hooker writes on ways to communicate public health risks to anti-vaxxers and anti-fluoriders.
Dismissing people鈥檚 worries as baseless, whether that鈥檚 about the safety of听mobile phones听or听fluoridated drinking water, is one of the听least effective ways听of communicating public health risks.
Yet it is common for people to 鈥渞eassure鈥� like this, both at home and in professional roles as experts, officials or corporate managers.
Another poor but common strategy is to try to听debunk听鈥溾�� (lies or misleading statements claimed as fact) like those circulating among听anti-vaccination听or听anti-fluoridation听groups.
If your role is to communicate public health risks, it is particularly hard to resist听trying harder听to听help people understand the evidence. This is especially the case when a risk is low, and hence public fears are not only out of proportion but also听听to redress.
If an official鈥檚 or doctor鈥檚 response to a parent worried about fluoridated drinking water is to show them even more data about how safe and effective it is, they often won鈥檛 sound convincing. Instead, they鈥檒l look incapable of unbiased discussion. Indeed, the more information they show, the more it can look like propaganda. This approach can even make the opponent鈥檚听.
Not only are reassuring people and countering misinformation ineffective, they can end up doing听a lot of damage.
Ineffective communication, however well intentioned, can even boost 鈥渁lt-facts鈥� by amplifying, not diminishing, people鈥檚 worries.
So public health officials, clinicians and involved community members need to shift strategies when dealing with low risks, from communicating evidence to hosing down what has been called 鈥渙utrage鈥�, another name for public concern.
1. Hose down your own outrage first
The first step may well be to听hose down your own outrage, or your fear about the consequences of public misinformation. Our own outrage stops us listening well to what鈥檚 driving public concern. We tend to correct or reassure when we鈥檙e motivated by our own worries, strategies that can worsen polarisation in a debate.
Addressing public outrage comes next. This is the type of response that focuses on your audience鈥檚 needs and听听where there鈥檚 some room to manoeuvre.
2. Respect people鈥檚 fears
There are good,听research-based strategies听to manage this type of outrage, starting with the principles of care and fairness.
At minimum, this means acknowledging and respecting people鈥檚 fears. A fearful parent needs to听know we care听about their concerns on say, vaccine safety, and that we have heard and understood their worries. That鈥檚 before they will care about what we say.
3. Build trust
One of the strongest predictors of whether someone believes or acts on a public health message is听trust; if we can鈥檛 trust the communicator,听we won鈥檛 believe the message. Care, fairness, competence and openness are all aspects of trust.
Trust is essential for us to be able to communicate effectively over the life cycle of a public health issue, whether that鈥檚 about a mistake in public policy, or when new studies lead to new information or recommendations.
So if you are unsure about communication, always choose the strategy that builds trust, as we discuss in a new paper in the journal听听from the听.
Competence means you need to stick unswervingly to the integrity of scientific method and data where you discuss it. But competence and openness together are best served by being upfront about听uncertainty and complexity. It鈥檚 better to err on the side of听communicating early and often, rather than to wait in the hopes of providing a more reliable and consistent message.
4. Don鈥檛 panic about panic
If you communicate early and the messages change or are confusing, won鈥檛 people over-react? Yes, and your job is to听hose down your outrage听and tolerate such early and usually short-lived over-reactions. People resume their usual habits and choices once they see for themselves they are safe.
Tolerating early over-reactions allows you to remain a trusted source people listen to, even if people don鈥檛 change their general views about the risk (and don鈥檛 expect them to).
Avoid telling people 鈥渄on鈥檛 panic鈥�. Even calling someone鈥檚 fears 鈥減anic鈥� is a way of diminishing them. What is 鈥減anic鈥� to you is simply 鈥渘ot doing as you think I should鈥� to an anxious public.
5. Your actions communicate more than your words
Think about what your actions say to the public. For instance, the Australian government鈥檚 decision to听cancel all temporary visas听from West African countries affected by Ebola virus in 2014 signalled that Ebola was a real, terrifying threat. This message undermined consistent reassuring official public health messages that the听听within the community in Australia was extremely low.
Helping people become less fearful can be as simple as giving them back some control in the situation, for instance by giving people concrete actions they can take. In the case of Ebola, that might mean monitoring their temperature if they think they have been exposed.
Public health units can also work with community members to develop or co-design their own solutions.听Deliberative processes听such as these, where people can see their stake in the outcome, can be exceptionally strong ways of enhancing public trust in processes and institutions.
6. Play the long game
Effective risk communication means playing a long game of 鈥済etting to maybe鈥�, the 鈥渕aybe鈥� being where officials can still engage a resistant public, one frightened and persuaded by 鈥渁lt-facts鈥�.
The aim is to maintain the relationships and the dialogue, not to correct all people鈥檚 false beliefs. Ironically this provides the best protection against polarisation and 鈥渁lt-facts鈥�, and hence听听we collectively face.
听
is an expert on the ethics of infection from the and . This article was originally published on .听
