Dear Richard, dear all
A quick reaction to your suggested link and relevance of communicating climate change/action and health research. I thought the article you shared is a brilliant find! It made me realize that I apply all five principles when communicating evidence and supporting knowledge translation:
1. Stop being so (overly) dramatic
-> important to always stay true to the actual evidence and not too unnecessarily dramatize in the sheer interest of storytelling or to gain attention. In my experience, this marks the exact line between evidence-informed communication and advocacy - the latter often exaggerating or accusing beyond the available evidence.
2. A climate change story goes beyond (the) climate
-> when communicating health research, situating the evidence in context (and describing it sufficiently) is key. Also helps to create compelling content that is of interest for different audiences.
3. Get local and think more about climate justice
-> For health research, this principle could be translated into one of reflecting the implication of evidence for patients (or, better: individuals with lived experience), communities, and practitioners and implementers. I usually try to create content that tells the story of a piece of evidence from one or several personal perspective(s). This also helps shedding light on different aspects such as social, economic, environmental etc. determinants of health and health inequalities.
4. Build trust and engagement that can combat dis/misinformation
-> this also requires collaborating across disciplines and actors (e.g., between scientists and communication specialists, with patient organizations and non-state actors), and makes communicating health research into more of a dialog format than a one-sided dissemination process. An important shift!
5. Be guided by science and embrace yes
-> This highlights the importance of including some form of “so what?” and “way forward” in science communication. Can be tricky where a study/review does not have any concrete recommendations, but can be mitigated with (above) strategies to personalize evidence with examples, and discuss problem-solving strategies based on complementary evidence (other studies, narratives from people with lived experience etc.)
Best regards and thanks again for sharing,
Sam
HIFA profile: Samuel Sieber is a Knowledge Translation and Communication Specialist, Global Coordination Mechanism on NCDs, Global NCD Platform, Deputy Director General's Office, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland. He is a member of the HIFA working group on Communicating health research. https://www.hifa.org/support/members/samuel siebers AT who.int
