Risk Communication Gaps During Climate-Sensitive Disease Outbreaks: A Qualitative Study

Liu Xiaojun; Fitri Nelda; Irza Haicha Pratama

doi:10.61919/gwqes144

Authors

Liu Xiaojun Department of Epidemiology, Universitas Prima, Indonesia Author
Fitri Nelda Department of Epidemiology, Universitas Prima, Indonesia Author
Irza Haicha Pratama Department of Epidemiology, Universitas Prima, Indonesia Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61919/gwqes144

Keywords:

Risk communication; climate-sensitive diseases; disease outbreaks; public health communication; community engagement; misinformation; outbreak preparedness

Abstract

Background: Climate-sensitive disease outbreaks are increasingly shaped by rainfall, flooding, water insecurity, heat, sanitation disruption, and vector ecology, but community response also depends on how risk is communicated. Qualitative inquiry is needed to understand how people interpret warnings, assess trust, respond to uncertainty and misinformation, and judge whether recommended protective actions are feasible in everyday conditions. Objective: This study explored community perceptions of risk communication during climate-sensitive disease outbreak risk, focusing on message timing, clarity, trusted sources, misinformation, channel access, and feasibility of recommended protective actions. Methods: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using 12 purposively varied participant accounts from adults exposed to communication about climate-sensitive disease risks. Participants included caregivers, workers, parents, older adults, community volunteers, young adults, a pregnant participant, a shopkeeper, a migrant worker, a local leader, a student, and a water-insecure resident. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, sensitised by Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication, Risk Communication and Community Engagement principles, and the Health Belief Model. Results: Six themes were identified: delayed warnings and weak preparedness signals; unclear explanation of the climate-disease connection; conflicting messages from official and informal sources; technical language and limited actionability; unequal access to trusted communication channels; and advice without feasible protective support. Participants’ accounts suggested that response was shaped not only by awareness, but also by trust, practical understanding, language access, service visibility, household resources, and the credibility of messengers. Conclusion: Risk communication for climate-sensitive outbreaks should be timely, locally explained, coordinated across sectors, delivered through trusted and accessible channels, and linked with practical support such as safe water, vector control, clinic access, and household-level prevention guidance.

References

1. World Health Organization. Climate change [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change

2. World Health Organization. Vector-borne diseases [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/vector-borne-diseases

3. Romanello M, Napoli CD, Green C, Kennard H, Lampard P, Scamman D, et al. The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change. Lancet. 2024. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(24)01822-1.

4. World Health Organization. Dengue: global situation [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2024-DON518

5. World Health Organization. Cholera upsurge [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2025 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/situations/cholera-upsurge

6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability [Internet]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2022 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

7. Caminade C, McIntyre KM, Jones AE. Impact of recent and future climate change on vector-borne diseases. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2019;1436(1):157-73.

8. Levy K, Woster AP, Goldstein RS, Carlton EJ. Untangling the impacts of climate change on waterborne diseases. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2018;5(2):242-52.

9. Baker RE, Mahmud AS, Miller IF, Rajeev M, Rasambainarivo F, Rice BL, et al. Infectious disease in an era of global change. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2022;20:193-205.

10. Patz JA, Frumkin H, Holloway T, Vimont DJ, Haines A. Climate change: challenges and opportunities for global health. JAMA. 2014;312(15):1565-80.

11. Ebi KL, Hess JJ. Health risks due to climate change: inequity in causes and consequences. Health Aff. 2020;39(12):2056-62.

12. World Health Organization. Risk communication and community engagement [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2024 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/risk-communications

13. World Health Organization. Communicating risk in public health emergencies: a WHO guideline for emergency risk communication policy and practice [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK540729/

14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Manual [Internet]. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2024 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/cerc/php/cerc-manual/index.html

15. Risk Communication and Community Engagement Collective Service. RCCE Coordination Guide [Internet]. Geneva: RCCE Collective Service; 2022 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.rcce-collective.net/

16. UNICEF. Risk communication and community engagement for public health emergencies [Internet]. New York: UNICEF; 2023 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://www.unicef.org/emergencies/risk-communication-and-community-engagement

17. Lewandowsky S, Cook J, Ecker UKH, Albarracin D, Amazeen MA, Kendeou P, et al. The Debunking Handbook 2020 [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2026 Jun 8]. Available from: https://sks.to/db2020

18. Roozenbeek J, Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, et al. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7(10):201199.

19. van der Linden S. Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public. Nat Med. 2022;28:460-7.

20. Rosenstock IM, Strecher VJ, Becker MH. Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(2):175-83.

21. Jones CL, Jensen JD, Scherr CL, Brown NR, Christy K, Weaver J. The Health Belief Model as an explanatory framework in communication research. Health Commun. 2015;30(6):566-76.

22. Champion VL, Skinner CS. The Health Belief Model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2008.

23. Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O. Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Glob Qual Nurs Res. 2017;4:2333393617742282.

24. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334-40.

25. Braun V, Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in reflexive thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol. 2021;18(3):328-52.

26. Kiger ME, Varpio L. Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Med Teach. 2020;42(8):846-54.

27. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753-60.

28. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ). Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-57.

29. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245-51.

30. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage; 1985.