Building confidence in crises – the roles of Sierra Leonean religious leaders’ during the 2014–2016 Ebola outbreak

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Religious leaders have been involved in health promotion campaigns for many years across West Africa, such as their engagement in the HIV/AIDS pandemic response. This involvement in public health campaigns has indicated varied results in the past and therefore a critical approach is required when engaging them in the outbreak response. Little is known about religious leaders' perceptions of their role in communicating Ebola risks during the 2014-2016 outbreak in Sierra Leone. OBJECTIVES: To better understand religious leader's perceptions of their roles communicating risk during the Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 10 semi-structured interviews were conducted with religious leaders in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Five Christian and Islamic leaders were recruited from multiple national religious organizations including male and female leaders. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were developed from the data that illustrated the different strategies religious leaders used when establishing public confidence in their role communicating risk and the messages they communicated during the outbreak. Religious leaders described how they established themselves as non-political actors in the outbreak response. Religious leaders both adapted pre-existing roles, including offering community support during crises, and assumed new responsibilities, such as fostering interreligious collaboration to develop Ebola-specific risk communication strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Religious leaders were pragmatic in their approach to risk communication, leveraging political distrust and collaborating with other actors to strengthen their position. Interreligious unity and scripturally supported messaging helped to establish confidence in the public health emergency response.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.