|Title||Health Communication Activities for the Prevention and Control of Communicable Disease in Europe: Research results|
|Keywords||health communication, communicable diseases|
Health communication activities to inform and influence individual and community decisions are increasingly being used. The extent and nature of the use of these health communication activities for the prevention and control of communicable diseases across Europe is currently unknown. In response, ECDC commissioned a Research Consortium to map current use and application of health communication activities, and to identify perceived priorities for efficacious use of health communication, in relation to the prevention and control of communicable diseases across the EU and EEA/EFTA countries.
A quantitative cross-sectional questionnaire and semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken in 30 EU countries as part of a mapping exercise. The e-survey sampling frame comprised of ECDC Communication Competent Bodies and additional contacts identified through snowball sampling. Sixty five e-surveys were completed. Telephone interviews were undertaken with an identified sample of key informants in relation to health communication. Forty four respondents participated. A group interview was also undertaken as part of a needs assessment, this sample comprised of ECDC Competent Bodies and delegates attending an ECDC meeting. Fifteen countries were represented with twenty five participants.
Amalgamated results show that health communication activities and examples were most commonly identified for influenza and HIV/AIDS. Less commonly used types of health communication were social marketing and health literacy. The level of health communication activity varies between disease groups and countries. Key target audiences identified for health communication activities were health professionals, public, patient/risk groups, media and policymakers. Outcome, impact and cost effectiveness evaluations are used less frequently. Identified health communication gaps included: fragmented responsibility at national level, planning not well-structured and limited education, training and evaluation.
Priority areas identified included: strengthening collaboration across the EU; prioritising education, training, research and evaluation for health communication; and developing an online interactive resource for sharing information and resources.
|Last name||First name||Organization||Country|
|Sixsmith||Jane||Health Promotion Research Centre, National University of Ireland Galway||IE||jane.sixsmith [ätt] nuigalway.ie|
|Doyle||Priscilla||Health Promotion Research Centre, National University of Ireland Galway||IE||priscilla.doyle [ätt] nuigalway.ie|
|Barry||Margaret||Health Promotion Research Centre, National University of Ireland Galway||IE||margaret.barry [ätt] nuigalway.ie|
|Mahmood||Dr. Samir||Health Promotion Research Centre, National University of Ireland Galway||IE||s.mahmood1 [ätt] nuigalway.ie|
|McDonald||Laura||Institute for Social Marketing & Centre for Tobacco Control Research, University of Stirling||GB||l.e.macdonald [ätt] stir.ac.uk|
|Oroviogoichoechea||Dr Cristina||University of Navarra Clinic, Pamplona,||ES||corovio [ätt] unav.es|
|Cairns||Georgina||Institute for Social Marketing & Centre for Tobacco Control Research, University of Stirling||GB||g.a.cairns [ätt] stir.ac.uk|
|Guillen-Grima||Dr Francisco||University of Navarra Clinic, Pamplona,||ES||frguillen [ätt] unav.es|
|Núñez Córdoba||Dr Jorge||University of Navarra Clinic, Pamplona,||ES||jnunezco [ätt] unav.es|