Managing False Information in Health Emergencies: An Operational Toolkit

"By employing the toolkit, valuable knowledge can be acquired and consolidated into an infodemic insights report which can serve as a pivotal resource for guiding RCCE-IM interventions."



Infodemic management (IM) is the systematic use of risk- and evidence-based analysis and approaches to manage harmful information and reduce its impact on health behaviours during health emergencies. IM is a crucial part of an integrated emergency public health intervention that also includes risk communication and community engagement (RCCE). The purpose of this toolkit is to provide operational support to national authorities, partners, civil society organisations (CSOs) and other stakeholders engaged in IM in the World Health Organization (WHO) European Region, in the context of health emergency preparedness and response. The goal is to promote accurate information dissemination, an improved health information ecosystem, and, ultimately, informed public health decisions.



The toolkit provides procedures for the detection and handling of false information, providing actionable tools in the execution of IM tasks as well as examples and case studies. It serves as a reference guide with key concepts and processes that can enable participants to reinforce and apply IM knowledge in their day-to-day work.



The resource follows a 5-phase process to deal with false information signals during a health emergency; this process can also be applied to managing other components of an infodemic such as public questions, concerns, and information voids (where people seek accurate health information but cannot find it). The 5 phases include:

1. Signal detection: actively monitoring the information ecosystem to identify potential signals of false information or rumours related to public health. This process requires the use of various online and offline tools and methods, such as social listening, media monitoring, community engagement, and expert networks to identify signals in real time. The outcome of this phase is a set of identified signals that need to be verified and further assessed in the subsequent phases of the process.
2. Signal verification: determining whether a signal is true or false and identifying the source of information. This process can include fact-checking the information, analysing the credibility of the source, and assessing the accuracy and consistency of the information across multiple sources. The outcome of this phase is a determination of whether the signal is true, false, or partially true, and the confidence level of that determination.
3. Risk assessment: performing an integrated analysis, evaluating its potential impact on public health, and assessing the level of risk associated with it. The outcome of this phase is a determination of the potential consequences of the false information signal on public health and to guide the development of action, including no action or a response strategy based on the following criteria: (i) source credibility; (ii) spread of the false information; and (iii) public health consequences.
4. Response design: developing interventions to counter false information and address the identified risks by: segmenting audiences; crafting accurate, clear, and relevant messages; selecting appropriate communication channels; and determining the best timing and frequency for message targeting. This section also provides tactical guidance on designing "debunks" and "prebunks" as response interventions to counter false information. "Effective response interventions must recognize that knowledge alone does not guarantee action. People's behaviour is influenced by beliefs, cultural norms, emotions and social pressures."
5. Outreach: implementing the response plan and targeting key messages to segmented audiences, encouraging them to adopt the behaviour that supports the intended public health outcomes. This phase can also link back to the first phase (signal detection) through a feedback loop. Engaging communities in the outreach phase bridges the gaps between health institutions and the public and can include:
   • Supporting message deployment: Nongovernmental entities often hold a high level of trust and respect within the communities they serve. Trusted influencers, CSOs, and community actors can encourage audiences to refute false information and accept and uptake accurate advice.
   • Selecting communication channels: It is vital to involve CSOs and community actors to identify the most suitable channels to reach audiences. CSOs and other community groups often have their own newsletters, websites, and other online and offline communication channels that may be used to reach target audiences. Furthermore, CSOs can support offline responses for example through community sessions focusing on topics related to a specific false narrative or by organising sessions with public health experts and community members.
   • Providing feedback on outreach: CSOs and community partners are best positioned to get feedback on how messages are perceived and their influence on behavioural change. Therefore, it is recommended to work with CSOs to track feedback from message recipients and to help shape iterations and follow-up.
   • Build back better together: WHO suggests involving partners and stakeholders in lessons learned and "building back better" efforts. Intra- and after-action reviews with communities are essential to identify resource gaps, effective measures, challenges, and recommendations to strengthen future responses.

   The outcome of this final phase is enabling people to take informed decisions to protect their health by refuting false information and promoting accurate information and advice.