An official website of the United States government
BACKGROUNDEffective communication is crucial during health crises, and social media has become a prominent platform for public health experts to inform and to engage with the public. At the same time, social media also platforms pseudo-experts who may promote contrarian views. Despite the significance of social media, key elements of communication such as the use of moral or emotional language and messaging strategy, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, has not been explored. OBJECTIVEThis study aims to analyze how notable public health experts (PHEs) and pseudo-experts communicated with the public during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our focus is the emotional and moral language they used in their messages across a range of pandemic issues. We also study their engagement with political elites and how the public engaged with PHEs to better understand the impact of these health experts on the public discourse. METHODSWe gathered a dataset of original tweets from 489 PHEs and 356 pseudo- experts on Twitter (now X) from January 2020 to January 2021, as well as replies to the original tweets from the PHEs. We identified the key issues that PHEs and pseudo- experts prioritized. We also determined the emotional and moral language in both the original tweets and the replies. This approach enabled us to characterize key priorities for PHEs and pseudo-experts, as well as differences in messaging strategy between these two groups. We also evaluated the influence of PHE language and strategy on the public response. RESULTSOur analyses revealed that PHEs focus on masking, healthcare, education, and vaccines, whereas pseudo-experts discuss therapeutics and lockdowns more frequently. PHEs typically used positive emotional language across all issues, expressing optimism and joy. Pseudo-experts often utilized negative emotions of pessimism and disgust, while limiting positive emotional language to origins and therapeutics. Along the dimensions of moral language, PHEs and pseudo-experts differ on care versus harm, and authority versus subversion, across different issues. Negative emotional and moral language tends to boost engagement in COVID-19 discussions, across all issues. However, the use of positive language by PHEs increases the use of positive language in the public responses. PHEs act as liberal partisans: they express more positive affect in their posts directed at liberals and more negative affect directed at conservative elites. In contrast, pseudo-experts act as conservative partisans. These results provide nuanced insights into the elements that have polarized the COVID-19 discourse. CONCLUSIONSUnderstanding the nature of the public response to PHE’s messages on social media is essential for refining communication strategies during health crises. Our findings emphasize the need for experts to consider the strategic use of moral and emotional language in their messages to reduce polarization and enhance public trust.
more »
« less
‘Staying in the lane’ of public health? Boundary‐work in the roles of state health officials and experts in COVID‐19 policymaking
The state‐level COVID‐19 response in the United States necessitated collaboration between governor' offices, health departments and numerous other departments and outside experts. To gain insight into how health officials and experts contributed to advising on COVID‐19 policies, we conducted semi‐structured interviews with 25 individuals with a health specialisation who were involved in COVID‐19 policymaking, taking place between February and December 2022. We found two diverging understandings of the role of health officials and experts in COVID‐19 policymaking: the role of ‘staying in the lane’ of public health in terms of the information that they collected, their advocacy for policies and their area of expertise and the role of engaging in the balancing of multiple considerations, such as public health, feasibility and competing objectives (such as the economy) in the crafting of pandemic policy. We draw on the concept of boundary‐work to examine how these roles were constructed. We conclude by considering the appropriateness as well as the ethical implications of these two approaches to public health policymaking.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2122574
- PAR ID:
- 10611973
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Sociology of Health & Illness
- Volume:
- 46
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 0141-9889
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- bioethics boundary work COVID-19 pandemic public health ethics public health policy sociology of health
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Two experiments examined the polarization of public support for COVID-19 policies due to people’s (lack of) trust in political leaders and nonpartisan experts. In diverse samples in the United States (Experiment 1; N = 1,802) and the United Kingdom (Experiment 2; N = 1,825), participants evaluated COVID-19 policies that were framed as proposed by ingroup political leaders, outgroup political leaders, nonpartisan experts, or, in the United States, a bipartisan group of political leaders. At the time of the study in April 2020, COVID-19 was an unfamiliar and shared threat. Therefore, there were theoretical reasons suggesting that attitudes toward COVID-19 policy may not have been politically polarized. Yet, our results demonstrated that even relatively early in the pandemic people supported policies from ingroup political leaders more than the same policies from outgroup leaders, extending prior research on how people align their policy stances to political elites from their own parties. People also trusted experts and ingroup political leaders more than they did outgroup political leaders. Partly because of this polarized trust, policies from experts and bipartisan groups were more widely supported than policies from ingroup political leaders. These results illustrate the potentially detrimental role political leaders may play and the potential for effective leadership by bipartisan groups and nonpartisan experts in shaping public policy attitudes during crises.more » « less
-
Background: In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists have scrambled to collect and analyze SARS-CoV-2 genomic data to inform public health responses to COVID-19 in real-time. Open-source phylogenetic and data visualization platforms for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology have rapidly gained popularity for their ability to illuminate spatial-temporal transmission patterns worldwide. However, the utility of such tools to inform public health decision-making for COVID-19 in real-time remains to be explored. Objective: The objective of this study was to convene experts in public health, infectious diseases, virology, and bioinformatics – many of whom were actively engaged in the COVID-19 response at the time of their participation – to discuss the application of phylodynamic tools to inform pandemic responses. Methods: A series of four virtual focus group discussions were hosted between June 2020 and June 2021, covering the pre- and post-variant and vaccination eras of the COVID-19 crisis. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim, and an iterative, thematic qualitative framework was used for analysis. Results: Of the 41 individuals invited, 23 total participants (56.1%) agreed to participate. Across the four focus group sessions, 15 (65%) of the participants were female, 17 (74%) were white, and 5 (22%) were black. Participants were described as molecular epidemiologists (ME, n=9), clinician-researchers (n=3), infectious disease experts (ID, n=4), and public health professionals (PH) at the local (n=4), state (n=2), and federal (n=1) levels. Collectively, participants felt that successful uptake of phylodynamic tools relies on the strength of academic-public health partnerships. They called for interoperability standards in sequence data sharing and cited many resource issues that must be addressed, including timeliness and cost, in addition to improving issues related to sampling bias and the translation of phylodynamic findings into public health action. Conclusions: This was the first qualitative study to characterize the perspectives of key experts regarding the utility of phylodynamic tools for the public health response to COVID-19. The focus group participants identified key areas for improvement of existing and future phylogenetic and data visualization platforms for monitoring SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology. This information is critical to both policymakers and developers as they consider how to handle existing and emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants during the ongoing crisis.more » « less
-
Abstract ObjectivesWe conducted interviews with state epidemiologists involved in the state-level COVID-19 response to understand the challenges and opportunities that state epidemiologists and state health departments faced during COVID-19 and consider the implications for future pandemic responses. MethodsAs part of a broader study on policymaking during COVID-19, we analyzed 12 qualitative interviews with state-epidemiologists from 11 US states regarding the challenges and opportunities they experienced during the COVID-19 response. ResultsInterviewees described the unprecedented demands COVID-19 placed on them, including increased workloads as well as political and public scrutiny. Decades of under-funding and constraints posed particular challenges for meeting these demands and compromised state responses. Emergency funding contributed to ameliorating some challenges. However, state health departments were unable to absorb the funds quickly, which created added pressure for employees. The emergency funding also did not resolve longstanding resource deficits. ConclusionsState health departments were not equipped to meet the demands of a comprehensive COVID-19 response, and increased funding failed to address shortfalls. Effective future pandemic responses will require sustained investment and adequate support to manage on-going and surge capacity needs. Increased public interest and skepticism complicated the COVID-19 response, and additional measures are needed to address these factors.more » « less
-
Abstract The Covid‐19 pandemic greatly impacted global public policy implementation. There is a lack of research synthesizing the lessons learned during Covid‐19 from a policy perspective. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to examine the literature on public policy implementation during the Covid‐19 pandemic in order to gain comprehensive insights into current topics and future directions. Five clusters of topics were identified: lessons from science, crisis governance, behavior and mental health, beyond the crisis, and frontlines and trust. Extensive collaboration among public health departments emerged as a significant research theme. Thirty recommendations for future research were identified, including the examination of frontline worker behavior, the use of just tech in policy implementation, and the investigation of policies driving improvements in global public health. The findings indicate that current research on public policy implementation during the Covid‐19 pandemic extends beyond health and economic crisis‐related policies. However, further studies in a post‐pandemic context are needed to validate the identified topics and future directions.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.13751
