Health and Biosecurity Governance
The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Public health measures work only if people understand and accept them. Health emergency communication explains risk and advice, listens to communities and responds to misinformation, under scientific uncertainty that changes advice over time. This page sets out how public health communication succeeds and fails, the records that show it, and who decides what is communicated and how.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 2
Environmental exposure, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For public health communications, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density and flood water with nitrogen dioxide from NASA GIBS, framed on Southern Africa; 4 further NASA layers wait in the list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Public health communication is the work of explaining health risks and advice to the public, listening to communities and responding to misinformation, especially in emergencies when evidence and advice change. Public health agencies, governments, community leaders and platforms hold the decisions.
The working screen behind this subject: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Public health communications · National IHR focal point · Event EV-8242
self-assessment score vs target
Integrity, inclusion and response. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Early guidance is based on limited evidence and is revised. Without explaining why, changes look like error and reduce trust in later advice.
People trust local health workers, community and religious leaders more than distant officials. Engaging them shapes uptake of testing, isolation and vaccination.
False claims spread where official information is absent, unclear or distrusted. Prompt, plain responses and listening to concerns limit their effect.
Health agencies, governments and political leaders speak separately. Mixed messages from political and technical voices confuse the public.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Infodemic | Too much information, including false or misleading information, during a disease outbreak, as WHO describes it. |
| Vaccine confidence | Trust in the safety, effectiveness and importance of vaccines and in the system that delivers them. |
| Community engagement | Working with communities to understand concerns, adapt measures and share responsibility for response. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust in health authorities | share of respondents | periodic | Public surveys | ESTIMATED |
| Vaccine confidence | share agreeing vaccines are safe, effective and important | periodic | Vaccine Confidence Project and Wellcome Global Monitor | ESTIMATED |
| Risk communication and community engagement capacity | JEE or SPAR score | periodic | WHO assessments | DECLARED |
| Community feedback mechanisms in emergency response | yes or no | per response | Response records | REPORTED |
| Languages used in official health messaging | count | per campaign | Message archives | OBSERVED |
| Corrections issued to health misinformation | count | per emergency | Agency records | REPORTED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| WHO risk communication and community engagement guidance | Principles and practice in health emergencies | Free, WHO terms |
| Wellcome Global Monitor | Trust in science and health across countries | Free to read, terms to check |
| Vaccine Confidence Project data | Vaccine confidence surveys by country | Free to read, terms to check |
| WHO infodemic management resources | Methods for managing misinformation in health emergencies | Free, WHO terms |
| After-action reviews of health emergencies | Communication lessons from past events | Public records, terms per publisher |
Health and Biosecurity Governance prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Public health agencies | What advice to give, how to explain uncertainty and when to update | Communication guidance and survey evidence |
| Heads of government | How political and technical communication are coordinated | Lessons from past emergencies |
| Community and faith leaders | Whether and how to relay health information | Engagement practice and trust data |
| Platforms and broadcasters | How to handle health misinformation | Policies and evidence on interventions |
The questions concern credibility, reach and honesty about uncertainty.
Communication works when the source is trusted, the message is clear and actionable, and people are able to act on it. Trust is built over time through transparency, consistency and respect, and lost quickly through perceived dishonesty or inconsistency. Explaining uncertainty openly, and explaining why advice changes, tends to sustain trust better than false certainty.
Information environments are fragmented. False or misleading information can spread quickly through social networks. Responses include prebunking, rapid correction, working with trusted community messengers and platform policies, each with trade-offs for expression and legitimacy.
| Method or data | What it shows | Limits |
|---|---|---|
| Survey and behavioural research | Awareness, trust and intentions | Stated intentions differ from behaviour |
| Social listening and media analysis | What information circulates | Platforms restrict data access; samples skew |
| Community engagement methods | Concerns and barriers in specific groups | Findings are local |
| Evaluation of campaigns | Effect of communication on behaviour | Hard to isolate from other influences |
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.