Damian Sendler: Since the dawn of civilization, pandemics and health disasters have provided significant public relations and communication issues for the medical profession. Decisions on how and when public health information should be delivered have long been a source of controversy. 

Damian Sendler

As social media has developed, it has become increasingly difficult to distinguish between fact and opinion in health communication. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, several of these difficulties were highlighted. 

Damian Jacob Sendler: An extensive body of research has examined the ways in which media, both professional and social (mainly user-generated), may educate and disseminate critical information while simultaneously spreading fear and misinformation. 

However, these challenges have always existed in health emergencies, but the rise of social media as de facto news sources for million has exacerbated these challenges, transformed the ways in which news about pandemics is consumed, and contributed to a reconceptualization of news in general. 

Consumers now have access to a wider range of information than ever before thanks to the proliferation of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter. As a result, it has allowed news to be delivered digitally through a social lens and contributed to polarization of thought by allowing users to self-select into bubbles consisting mostly of those who share their views. 

Misinformation can have a negative impact on health workers, patients, and the public health system, as was seen in the Ebola outbreak of 2014, when misinformation led to hostility or suspicion toward health workers, as well as a refusal to receive necessary medical treatment and a disregard for public health directives. 

In addition to their tendency to spread disinformation, social media have influenced and been influenced by recent changes in attention spans, communication, and information consumption habits. 

Decontextualized images, words, and short videos are the cornerstone of today’s social media experience. It’s hard to tell the difference between news and entertaining content in this medium. This is a mirror of the collective epistemology, which becomes more difficult to distinguish as the distinctions between objective fact and opinion or nonsense become more blurred. 

So as a result, today’s quick dissemination of fluid data has instilled a transitory idea of truth that has come to be connected with an equally unstable world view. Misinformation and disinformation can have a negative impact on people’s lives as a result. 

Damian Jacob Sendler

In recent years, the altering media landscape has presented health practitioners with public relations issues. According to previous studies, more than 90% of persons in the United States believe that health professionals are trustworthy sources of information.10 Individuals working in this field face a diversity of audiences as well as fast-changing material (a research estimated that medical knowledge in 2020 will quadruple every 73 days).

Damian Jacob Markiewicz Sendler: Health experts may be tasked with informing both policymakers and the general public when commenting on health disasters, such as pandemics. Even the most experienced clinicians face obstacles in communicating their message to vulnerable populations, which are not typically addressed in higher education or medical training. Some academic centers have established specific curriculum for health practitioners to successfully communicate in the context of catastrophe scenarios, but these have not yet been extensively adopted. 

Damien Sendler: In times of crisis, the motivations of medical personnel can shift, but in the majority of cases, they appear to be acting in the public’s best interest by dispelling myths and recommending preventative measures that will spare an already overcrowded health system. 

The limelight and media attention of health emergencies, such as COVID-19, have also been used by health professionals to advance their careers or personal financial interests swiftly. Professional societies have at times publicly and properly rejected these ill-intentioned efforts, but not in all circumstances. In addition, scientists have recently self-retracted articles from high-profile scholarly journals due to heightened scrutiny about questionable data analysis.

Dr. Damian Jacob Sendler and his media team provided the content for this article.