| Literature DB >> 35440864 |
Wai Jia Tam1, Nina Gobat2, Divya Hemavathi1, Dale Fisher1,3.
Abstract
In early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in Singapore, Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) with large, diverse communities of migrant workers living in high-density accommodation was slow to develop. By August 2020, Singapore had reported 55,661 cases of COVID-19, with migrant workers comprising 94.6% of the cases. A system of RCCE among migrant worker communities in Singapore was developed to maximize synergy in RCCE. Proactive stakeholder engagement and participatory approaches with affected communities were key to effective dissemination of scientific information about COVID-19 and its prevention.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Singapore; community engagement; migrant workers; risk communication
Year: 2021 PMID: 35440864 PMCID: PMC8655121 DOI: 10.1177/10755470211061513
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Commun ISSN: 1075-5470
Figure 1.An example of illustrations in the health resources created, which included characters that were friendly, relatable, and culturally sensitive, drawing elements from their daily lives to ensure contextualization and relatability.
Key Challenges and Bottom-Up Solutions to Delivering RCCE Among a Large Migrant Worker Population in Singapore During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
| Challenges | Opportunities and solutions |
|---|---|
| Stakeholders | |
| Poor coordination between nonprofit organizations and health clusters, with no central leadership. | An RCCE working group was established, with regular meetings to strategize plans for coordination as a network. |
| Limited stakeholder buy-in and support. | Proactive identification and engagement of high-level leaders and stakeholders was done, including at policy-making level for strategic planning even after acute crisis phase. There was early and broad sharing of tools and products. |
| RCCE was not prioritized as a key pillar of outbreak response due to being misunderstood as workers’ welfare. | Influential high-level leadership addressed skepticism toward RCCE proactively. |
| The local steering committee comprised only of doctors initially. | Partners from diverse backgrounds were included to leverage on more strengths and facilitate cross-disciplinary collaborations. Policymakers from government ministries were engaged to provide input and receive on-ground feedback. |
| Migrant Workers | |
| Migrant workers in Singapore are culturally diverse and speak various languages. | Volunteers who spoke in the various eight languages were recruited to assist with efforts. |
| Lack of a centralized channel to receive health messaging in the early parts of the outbreak. | Stronger communication channels were built by utilizing commonly used social media sites, and partnerships with influential migrant worker personalities and government authorities. |
| Lack of understanding on migrant workers’ access to health information. | Continuous adoption of innovative approaches to engage with migrant workers, both online and offline was done. |
| Migrant workers were reluctant to seek medical attention at times. | Podcasts, videos, and resources were produced by migrant worker leaders to encourage seeking medical attention early when needed. |
| Challenges (e.g., movement restrictions, variable digital literacy levels) to scaling health ambassador training efforts | Innovative methodologies were adopted to leverage technology. |
| Limited manpower for RCCE efforts. | Volunteers were actively recruited via schools and social media. Funds were raised to recruit staff. |
| Burnout and high turnover among volunteers. | Active training, engagement, appreciation, and refreshing of volunteers were done. |
| Face-to-face engagements were time-consuming and manpower-intensive. | Health engagement messages were curated into audio, video, and comic format and disseminated via loudhailers, social media, and text messaging channels. |
| Health Messaging | |
| Addressing real concerns accurately. | Migrant worker feedback about concerns and myths were obtained through face-to-face engagements, text messaging, and at medical posts. Responses were created after broad consultation with government departments, health experts, and pilot groups of migrant workers. |
| Difficulties in translations and proofreading of health messages. | Translators were recruited. Migrant workers assisted in proofreading. Standard operating procedures were established to streamline processes. |
| Limited capacity to distribute resources (e.g., print companies in lockdown, bureaucratic procurement processes, and dormitory managers overwhelmed by operational duties) | Processes were adapted to bypass institutional procurement processes and alternate dissemination pathways were quickly implemented. |
| Different facilities required different, tailored messages. | Facilities with similar challenges could share resources and others were tailored as needed. |
| Largely unstandardized RCCE efforts across facilities. | Resources developed were posted centrally on a website and shared nationwide to avoid duplication of efforts. A centralized RCCE team was developed to engage government authorities and migrant worker organizations to align efforts. |
| Working with different nonhealth sectors with different chains of command and outbreak experience. | Strong interpersonal relationships and trust had to be developed in the field. “MyBrotherSG” evolved as a networking platform for migrant worker organizations and various stakeholders, with a strong ethos of inclusivity, collaboration and noncompetitiveness. |
Note. RCCE = risk communication and community engagement.