Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:13:30.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Getting the Message Out: Social Media and Word-of-Mouth as Effective Communication Methods during Emergencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 December 2018

Amy F. Wolkin ,
Amy H. Schnall ,
Nicole K. Nakata  and
Esther M. Ellis
Amy F. Wolkin*
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Director, Atlanta, GeorgiaUSA
Amy H. Schnall
Affiliation:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emergency Health, Division of Environmental Health Science and Practice, Emergency Management, Radiation, and Chemical Branch, Atlanta, GeorgiaUSA
Nicole K. Nakata
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Management, City and County of Honolulu, USA
Esther M. Ellis
Affiliation:
United States Virgin Islands Department of Health, Saint Thomas, Virgin Islands, USA
*
Correspondence: Amy Wolkin, DrPH, MSPH 1600 Clifton Road, NE Atlanta, Georgia 30329 MS D44 USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effective communication is a critical part of managing an emergency. During an emergency, the ways in which health agencies normally communicate warnings may not reach all of the intended audience. Not all communities are the same, and households within communities are diverse. Because different communities prefer different communication methods, community leaders and emergency planners need to know their communities’ preferred methods for seeking information about an emergency. This descriptive report explores findings from previous community assessments that have collected information on communication preferences, including television (TV), social media, and word-of-mouth (WoM) delivery methods. Data were analyzed from 12 Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs) conducted from 2014-2017 that included questions regarding primary and trusted communication sources. A CASPER is a rapid needs assessment designed to gather household-based information from a community. In 75.0% of the CASPERs, households reported TV as their primary source of information for specific emergency events (range = 24.0%-83.1%). Households reporting social media as their primary source of information differed widely across CASPERs (3.2%-41.8%). In five of the CASPERs, nearly one-half of households reported WoM as their primary source of information. These CASPERs were conducted in response to a specific emergency (ie, chemical spill, harmful algal bloom, hurricane, and flood). The CASPERs conducted as part of a preparedness activity had lower percentages of households reporting WoM as their primary source of information (8.3%-10.4%). The findings in this report demonstrate the need for emergency plans to include hybrid communication models, combining traditional methods with newer technologies to reach the broadest audience. Although TV was the most commonly reported preferred source of information, segments of the population relied on social media and WoM messaging. By using multiple methods for risk communication, emergency planners are more likely to reach the whole community and engage vulnerable populations that might not have access to, trust in, or understanding of traditional news sources. Multiple communication channels that include user-generated content, such as social media and WoM, can increase the timeliness of messaging and provide community members with message confirmation from sources they trust encouraging them to take protective public health actions.

WolkinAF, SchnallAH, NakataNK, EllisEM. Getting the Message Out: Social Media and Word-of-Mouth as Effective Communication Methods during Emergencies. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(1):89–94.

Keywords

disaster preparednessemergency responserisk communication
Type
Special Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2019 , pp. 89 - 94
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Atlanta, Georgia USA) or the institutions with which the authors are affiliated.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Manual. https://emergency.cdc.gov/cerc/manual/index.asp. Published 2018. Accessed May 24, 2018.Google Scholar
2. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action. https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1813-25045-0649/whole_community_dec2011__2_.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed February 20, 2018.Google Scholar
3. Fraustino, JD, Liu, B, Jin, Y. Social Media Use During Disasters: A Review of the Knowledge Base and Gaps. College Park, Maryland USA: National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START); 2012. https://www.start.umd.edu/sites/default/files/files/publications/START_SocialMediaUseduringDisasters_LitReview.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2018.Google Scholar
4. Whitler, K. Why word of mouth marketing is the most important social media. Forbes. 2014. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimberlywhitler/2014/07/17/why-word-of-mouth-marketing-is-the-most-important-social-media/#7846cad654a8. February 20, 2018.Google Scholar
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Toolkit. 2nd ed. Atlanta, Georgia USA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2012. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/disaster/casper/docs/cleared_casper_toolkit.pdf. Accessed February 20, 2018.Google Scholar
6. Malilay, J, Heumann, M, Perrotta, D, et al. The role of applied epidemiology methods in the disaster management cycle. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(11):2092-2102.Google Scholar
7. Bayleyegn, TM, Schnall, AH, Ballou, SG, et al. Use of Community Assessments for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPERs) to rapidly assess public health issues-United States, 2003-2012. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(4):374-381.Google Scholar
8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Disaster Response and Recovery Needs of Communities Affected by the Elk River Chemical Spill, West Virginia. Atlanta, Georgia USA: National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (April 2014). http://www.dhhr.wv.gov/News/2014/Documents/WVCASPERReport.pdf. Accessed January 3, 2018.Google Scholar
9. Ohio Department of Health. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Following Detection of Microcystin Toxin in a Municipal Water Supply, Lucas County, Ohio. https://www.odh.ohio.gov/%7e/media/ODH/ASSETS/Files/eh/OHCASPERReport. Published 2014. Accessed February 20, 2018.Google Scholar
10. Maricopa County Department of Public Health. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Heat Vulnerability and Emergency Preparedness Needs Assessment, Maricopa, Arizona. https://www.maricopa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5366/Community-Assessment-for-Public-Health-Emergency-Response-CASPER-PDF. Published 2015. Accessed February 20, 2018.Google Scholar
11. California Department of Public Health. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) addressing the California Drought—Mariposa County, 2016. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Mariposa%202016%20CASPER%20report.pdf. Published 2017. Accessed January 15, 2018.Google Scholar
12. Crook County Health Department. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response. Unpublished report. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/disaster/casper/states/or.htm. Accessed February 20, 2018.Google Scholar
13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) After the Flint Water Crisis: May 17–19, 2017, Flint Michigan. July 2016. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hsb/disaster/casper/docs/flint_mi_casper_report_508.pdf. Accessed March 5, 2018.Google Scholar
14. West Virginia Bureau for Public Health. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Addressing West Virginia Floods. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
15. USVI Department of Health. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Following Hurricanes Irma and Maria—US Virgin Islands, 2017. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
16. USVI Department of Health. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Addressing Zika—US Virgin Islands, 2017. Unpublished report.Google Scholar
17. Manuel, J. Crisis and emergency risk communication: lessons from the Elk River spill. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122(8):A214-219.Google Scholar
18. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Drought and your health. https://www.cdc.gov/features/drought/index.html. Published 2017. Accessed February 23, 2018.Google Scholar
19. Utah Department of Health. Real-time information network provides emergency education and warnings to refugees. http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/practice/real-time-information-network-provides-emergency-education-and-warnings-refugees. Accessed December 11, 2017.Google Scholar
20. AARP. Help someone stay cool during extreme heat. http://createthegood.org/toolkit/help-someone-stay-cool-during-extreme-heat. Published 2018. Accessed February 23, 2018.Google Scholar
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heat and older adults. https://www.cdc.gov/disasters/extremeheat/older-adults-heat.html. Published 2017. Accessed January 15, 2018.Google Scholar
22. National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Be a Force of Nature. https://www.weather.gov/wrn/force. Accessed November 12, 2017.Google Scholar