Inequalities in Covid-19 Messaging: A Systematic Scoping Review

9Citations
Citations of this article
28Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic has been widely documented. While deaths are now in the millions and many more have been impacted in other ways, the impact of Covid-19 has not been felt equally, with it exacerbating existing inequalities and disproportionately impacting a number of populations. With this Covid-19 has created unprecedented challenges in relation to health communication, with the need to reach disadvantaged populations. This systematic scoping review sought to 1) synthesize the existing research regarding communication inequalities in the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and 2) analyze the recommendations that emerge from this body of evidence on how to best address these inequalities. This review includes 40 studies that fell into three broad groups (1) those revealing a disadvantage or inequality in studies of general population; (2) those focussing on communication with sub-groups disproportionately affected by the pandemic; and (3) those reporting and evaluating practical attempts to address inequalities. The results largely corroborate those found in past pandemics, highlighting the role of sociodemographic, cultural/religious, and economic factors in facilitating/jeopardizing the public’s capacity to access and act upon public health messaging. In a number of studies it was encouraging to see recommendations from the literature–particularly, lessons learnt on the importance of community partnerships, trusted messengers and the co-creation of health and risk messages–being applied, however many challenges remain unmet. Covid-19 has also highlighted the need to actively tackle misinformation, something which was recognized, but largely unaddressed.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kalocsányiová, E., Essex, R., & Fortune, V. (2023). Inequalities in Covid-19 Messaging: A Systematic Scoping Review. Health Communication, 38(12), 2549–2558. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2088022

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free