Systematic review analyzes inclusive crisis communication practices, highlighting challenges and development stages across diverse populations.
Digital advances in crisis communication have expanded outreach possibilities while simultaneously creating barriers that disproportionately impact marginalized groups. This systematic review analyzes 66 peer-reviewed articles from 2020–2024, following PRISMA protocols, to investigate how inclusive crisis communication has transformed digitally. The research addresses four key areas: historical development, communication strategies, digital platform effects, and challenges in engaging diverse audiences. The findings identify three developmental stages: initial digital transition (2020), theoretical consolidation (2021–2022), and sophisticated AI-based customization (2023–2025), with COVID-19 serving as a catalyst for equity-focused practices. Significant knowledge gaps persist regarding intersectional identities, particularly for aging migrants, rural individuals with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged communities. The study proposes a cyclical four-phase model combining Stakeholder Theory, Social Amplification of Risk Framework, and Enhanced Situational Crisis Communication Theory through interconnected mechanisms. SARF amplification adjusts E-SCCT response intensity according to stakeholder characteristics, stakeholder salience reshapes amplification networks throughout crisis stages, and E-SCCT emotional variability influences prioritization decisions. This integrated approach enables concurrent rather than linear theoretical application for addressing compound vulnerabilities. The framework provides structured recommendations for stakeholder identification, cultural customization, real-time interaction, and continuous assessment, helping practitioners enhance inclusive outreach while reducing marginalization across diverse populations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hartanti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: