This evaluation identifies barriers in public health communication, including digital literacy and misinformation, suggesting community-led approaches.
Purpose This paper explores the topic of disseminating public health information, the challenges and barriers, what can be learnt from the experiences of community health, education and media practitioners across the globe, and how we can utilise this knowledge to inform the creation and dissemination of public health messages in the UK. Design/methodology/approach Specialists across seven countries took part in semi-structured podcast interviews which formed an online “Newsdesk” day. Five podcast interviews were undertaken which discussed different communication techniques with the aim to challenge and aid our understanding of global health communications, with a particular focus on the use of community radio/podcasts. Specialists working as radio producers, a global director of impact, public health researchers and organisation co-ordinators took part in the discussions. Thematic analysis was employed to analyse the interviews’/discussions’ findings. Findings Three key challenges to public health communications were identified within the discussions: digital literacy, the digital divide and misinformation. Having discussed ways in which to combat these three barriers, the findings from the discussions highlighted the importance of audience research to overcome issues surrounding digital literacy; multimodal dissemination in response to the digital divide and using trusted sources to reduce the spread of misinformation. Originality/value This study found that the traditional methods of dissemination, often utilised by larger media outlets, are not always effective. Empowerment and collaboration/co-creation to tailor information to different communities and using community-led models of communication are vital. Researching and working alongside audiences and using multimodal dissemination enables valuable and successful health communications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Crosby et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: