Does simply broadcasting more information help people make better choices when a pandemic strikes? During a major health crisis, public officials usually rush to give explanations on television, radio, and social media networks. Yet merely pushing out announcements does not resolve confusion or stop false claims from spreading. Research by Herkulaas Combrink into COVID-19 communication in South Africa shows that successful public outreach relies on social listening, an ongoing feedback loop where authorities track community questions, interpret public doubts, and adapt their guidance accordingly [3].
Why Information Alone Fails in Health Emergencies
When health threats emerge, governments tend to assume that people only lack accurate scientific facts. Officials hold press briefings, publish guidelines, and launch public broadcast campaigns to explain the situation. The underlying idea sounds straightforward: provide correct facts, and citizens will make sound health decisions. But simply delivering more statements does not resolve fear, clear up misunderstandings, or rebuild community trust [3]. Instead of absorbing official messages passively, communities debate new risks, seek reassurance from neighbors, and share personal concerns that standard announcements rarely address.
Information gaps and public uncertainty quickly create voids where rumors flourish. If official communication fails to speak to what people actually worry about, those voids fill with speculation. While an earlier PerEXP Teamworks analysis on countering misinformation with familiar community language looked at how phrasing shapes audience reception, Herkulaas Combrink examines the feedback loops that detect community doubts before policies take shape. In South Africa, Public Health communication broke down whenever agencies talked without checking whether anyone felt heard [3].
How Social Listening Tracks Public Uncertainty
To hear what communities were experiencing during the COVID pandemic, South Africa’s national Department of Health set up a Risk Communication and Community Engagement working group. The team adopted social listening, a method using machine learning and artificial intelligence to monitor public sentiment, map emerging rumors, and identify information voids in real time. Public feedback was gathered from online news, social media posts, public WhatsApp channels, telephone call centers, and local community networks [1]. Regular reports brought these streams together so Public Health teams could see emerging problems as they unfolded.
The system functioned as a circular workflow rather than a one-way megaphone. Health workers listened to conversations, identified the root problems behind community anxiety, recommended practical responses, and then kept listening to evaluate new developments [3]. Between 2021 and 2023, the Risk Communication and Community Engagement group gathered and analyzed 91 regular reports to discover which misinformation themes recurred and what corrective steps teams recommended. This steady monitoring helped South Africa health officials recognize that community worries were not random noise, but organized patterns reflecting public anxiety [1].
Separate research on adult cognitive reserve and language learning reveals how mental frameworks influence how people process complex data. In crisis management, people similarly interpret health advice through existing beliefs and social settings. Tracking public sentiment through community channels allowed South Africa working groups to gather unvarnished feedback that standard press conferences never captured [1]. The circular method showed that hearing community voices is an investigative process rather than a passive survey [3].
What Misinformation Themes Emerge Most Often?
Misinformation during the South Africa health response centered mostly on COVID itself, with vaccine safety and side effects forming the second major share of public concern. To ensure that personal bias did not skew the conclusions, at least 2 researchers reviewed the collected statements independently and grouped similar claims together. In total, the team identified 964 instances of misinformation across 12 themes and recorded 573 recommended actions in 6 themes. More than half of all logged falsehoods concerned COVID itself, while the other instances involved vaccine side effects, unproven treatments, trust in public figures, and government honesty [1].
Official advice often missed the mark because it addressed general disease statistics rather than specific anxieties. For example, when citizens expressed fear about potential vaccine complications or long-term safety, health departments often responded by repeating general infection figures. Herkulaas Combrink pointed out that general disease numbers do not satisfy a family asking about specific side effects. Public Health authorities in South Africa needed to tailor their messages to the precise doubt troubling the public, acknowledging uncertainty where answers were still developing rather than dismissing public apprehension [3].
Why Do Rumors Persist in Social Listening Reports?
Rumors recurred across the 91 reports because public information environments change constantly as circumstances evolve, meaning that a familiar rumor often returns with new questions or under altered conditions. The researchers noted that their study did not track what occurred after recommendations went out, and could not determine whether local teams carried out individual proposals or changed what people believed [1]. As pandemic rules shifted, new information voids opened up. A concern that returned months later did not mean that the original problem lingered unchanged; rather, citizens were testing official guidance against newly emerging doubts [3].
This disconnect reveals the gap between listening and outcomes, as Herkulaas Combrink explained. Identifying a public concern is only the first step in health crisis management. What matters just as much is whether Public Health teams turn that insight into a helpful response, whether the message reaches its intended audience, and whether community behavior changes afterward. Without following up on outcomes, listening systems risk becoming passive data collection exercises that record problems without helping people overcome them [3].
Five Principles for Responsive Social Listening
To bridge the gap between gathering data and achieving real public health outcomes, Herkulaas Combrink and colleagues outlined 5 core principles from their findings. First, communicators must understand the specific concern instead of assuming what the public needs to know. Second, health agencies must use that insight to reframe guidance so it speaks straight to underlying questions. Third, authorities need to work with trusted local voices—such as respected community figures and local leaders—so messages travel through personal relationships rather than impersonal government press releases [1].
The remaining two principles focus on message delivery and adaptation over time. Fourth, agencies should select suitable communication channels, recognizing that a rumor seen online does not always need an online reply. Outreach can happen through community radio stations, newspapers, faith groups, and community health workers who speak with families. Finally, teams must keep listening because community worries never stand still [3]. Old rumors resurface, new doubts appear, and public questions shift as medical guidelines update over time.
Herkulaas Combrink cautioned that the goal of social listening is not simply to build another digital dashboard counting likes, mentions, and shared posts. Its true value lies in linking what teams hear to practical decisions about what to say, who should deliver the message, and which community channels to use. When assessing a new rumor, health teams should ask: “Who is saying this? Why are they worried? Could this cause harm? Who do they trust? What language do they speak? Where do they get their information from? And, after we respond, has anything changed?” [3]
How to Listen to Understand and Respond Better?
Listening to understand calls for Public Health institutions to treat communication as an ongoing two-way conversation rather than a one-off public announcement [3]. The findings carry implications far beyond the COVID pandemic, as health agencies around the world will encounter fresh outbreaks, new vaccines, and emerging health emergencies. Herkulaas Combrink, together with co-authors P. Mkungeka, C. Bhengu, R. Katarya, and B. Smart, published these systematic findings in Frontiers in Public Health (Volume 14, 2026) to provide a clear framework for future emergency communication teams [1].
A companion synthesis by Herkulaas Combrink titled “Listen, understand, repeat: the circular approach to good communication in a health crisis” has also been released as a preprint. Because this companion paper is a preprint, it has not yet undergone formal peer review, meaning its practical recommendations represent preliminary academic analysis rather than settled scientific consensus [2]. Medical Xpress and The Conversation republished accounts of the research edited by Sadie Harley and Robert Egan under Creative Commons licensing, showing how circular listening models can help governments move beyond top-down announcements during emergencies [3, 4].
The central challenge for health communicators is understanding what takes place after a problem is heard. While social listening tools give researchers the ability to detect public worry, closing the loop needs governments to evaluate whether their answers actually ease community fear. Future crises will bring new rumors, unfamiliar treatments, and shifting public trust. Public Health authorities in South Africa and internationally that learn to listen carefully, adjust their messages, and listen again will stand a far better chance of helping their communities navigate that uncertainty [3].
- ACADEMIC JOURNAL Combrink, H. M. V. E., Mkungeka, P., Bhengu, C., Katarya, R., & Smart, B. (2026). Managing an infodemic in the global south: a systematic evidence synthesis from COVID-19 social listening reports. Frontiers in Public Health, 14. [Article Link]
- PREPRINT Combrink, H. (2026). Listen, understand, repeat: the circular approach to good communication in a health crisis. [Article Link]
- ONLINE NEWS Combrink, H. M. (2026). Listen, understand, repeat: the circular approach to good communication in a health crisis. The Conversation. [Article Link]
- ONLINE NEWS Combrink, H. M. (2026). Listen, understand, repeat: The circular approach to good communication in a health crisis. Medical Xpress. [Article Link]
APA 7: TWs Editor. (2026, October 6). Social Listening Reshapes Communication in Health Crises. PerEXP Teamworks. https://perexpteamworks.com/en/social-listening-health-crisis-communication/
