Risk communication and community engagement explained

Risk communication and community engagement, usually shortened to RCCE, is the part of a health emergency response that deals with people rather than pathogens. The World Health Organization defines risk communication as the real-time exchange of information, advice and opinions between experts or officials and people who face a threat to their health, economic or social wellbeing.¹ Its purpose is to enable people at risk to make informed decisions.¹

Community engagement is the second half. WHO describes it as developing relationships and structures that engage communities as equal partners in creating emergency response solutions that are acceptable and workable for those they affect.¹ In other words, RCCE is not a campaign delivered to communities. It is health emergency communication done with them.

WHO's guideline on emergency risk communication, the first evidence-based guidance of its kind, groups its recommendations into building trust, integrating communication into emergency systems, and communication practice.² On trust, it recommends that risk communication be linked to functioning and accessible services, and be transparent, timely, easy to understand and willing to acknowledge uncertainty.²

That last point is often the hardest for officials. The guideline recommends that authorities give explicit information about uncertainties and indicate what is known and not known at a given time.² Saying "we do not know yet, and we will update you on Friday" protects credibility far better than a confident statement that later proves wrong.

WHO recommends identifying people whom the community trusts, building relationships with them and involving them in decision-making so that interventions are collaborative.² These may be community health workers, religious leaders, teachers, local leaders or radio presenters, depending on the place.

The Red Cross Red Crescent guide to community engagement and accountability advises that assessments gather people's trusted sources of information, both people and channels, and their preferred ways to share feedback.³ It adds that assessment teams should speak local languages and be accepted and trusted by the community.³ UNICEF's minimum quality standards make the principle explicit: communities should be listened to and have a meaningful role in processes and issues that affect them.⁴

Good RCCE messages are short, practical and consistent. WHO recommends that risk should not be explained in technical terms, that consistent messages should come from different information sources early in an outbreak, and that messages should promote specific actions people can realistically take to protect their health.²

Channels matter as much as wording. The same guideline says social media and traditional media should be part of an integrated strategy with other forms of communication.² It also notes that social media can be used to monitor and respond to rumours, public reactions and concerns during an emergency.² In our own practice, we pair any public message with the channels people already use, such as community radio, short video and face-to-face meetings.

Community feedback is what turns communication into engagement. The IFRC Feedback Kit defines community feedback as any insights generated by community members, including questions, suggestions, concerns, perceptions and complaints.⁵ It explains that feedback helps build trusted partnerships, address rumours and suspicion, and avoid harm.⁵ The kit sets out six stages for a feedback mechanism:⁵

• Building the feedback mechanism
• Collection
• Feedback referral and analysis
• Sharing and action
• Closing the loop
• Review and adaptation of the mechanism

RCCE cannot be improvised once an outbreak starts. WHO says emergency risk communication planning must occur well in advance and be a continuous process covering preparedness as well as response.² It recommends that risk communication have a designated strategic role in response leadership teams, that staff be trained regularly, and that it have a defined and sustained budget as part of core budgeting.²

Rwanda's 2024 Marburg virus disease outbreak shows why this matters. WHO reported 66 confirmed cases, including 15 deaths, before the Ministry of Health declared the outbreak over on 20 December 2024.⁶ Training for health facilities supported by WHO and partners included risk communication and community engagement, and WHO recommended continued RCCE to help prevent re-emergence.⁶

RCCE is different from a long-term behaviour change programme. It operates under time pressure, with incomplete information and high public anxiety. Even so, the craft of communication still counts. Clear explainer videos, photographs that show real services and people, and radio interviews with trusted local voices can carry guidance further than a printed notice.

The IFRC guide warns that feedback is often collected with little impact on the design of programmes.³ Media work can help avoid that by showing communities how their questions changed the response. Whatever you produce, follow strict consent and dignity standards, because people in an outbreak are often frightened, unwell or at risk of stigma.

• RCCE named in your emergency preparedness plan, with a lead and a budget
• A list of trusted community voices and channels, by area
• Message templates in plain language and local languages
• A rule for saying what is known, what is not, and when you will update
• One agreed set of messages shared with all partners
• A feedback mechanism that records questions, concerns and rumours
• A routine for reporting back to communities on what changed
• Regular training for staff and spokespeople