*3.1.2 Improved/adapted methods for communication*

The experience to date has, if need be, taught us the importance of timely, honest, credible, empathetic, informative and balanced information as lack of information can become misinformation and lead to untowardly consequences [23, 27, 32]. Even ensuring clear and effective communication with staff and students in higher education systems could prove challenging [68]. Credible sources such as religious or community leaders should be identified and engaged as appropriate. Attention should be paid to 'infodemic', the misinformation type – i.e., conspiracy theories, fake news etc. - in particular, on messenger apps and social media which could harm public health and put millions of lives at risk [55, 69].

The information should be conveyed using local context and vernacular languages and as jargon free as possible, making science accessible [67]. It should avoid language [that] creates a public health discourse that seems reactive rather than proactive, reductive rather than holistic, disempowering rather than empowering [70]. This has proved a slippery ground even under seemingly more auspicious circumstances that leads to increasing erosion of trust in science [71, 72]. There is, therefore, need to be especially careful to communicate transparent information about our capabilities, uncertainties, disagreements or agreements and being trustworthy including on vaccines indicated areas for improvement [73, 74]. A study in a major town, after less than two weeks of the outbreak in Ethiopia shows widespread misconceptions about the pandemic [75]. There have also been calls to make full use of digital technologies but their limitations in deprived areas, where access to the internet is relatively scarce, patients have little digital literacy, and language barriers abound should be factored [9, 76, 77].
