Institutionalizing public health diplomacy: building trust in crisis.
- 1Institute of Medicine of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.
- 2Chicago Department of Public Health, Chicago, IL, United States.
- 3Coventry University, Coventry, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Public health crises are increasingly becoming diplomatic events. They require leaders to navigate scientific uncertainty while negotiating political, economic, social, and community interests. Yet public health preparedness continues to treat communication primarily as an individual leadership skill rather than as an institutional capacity for negotiation, consensus building, and trust. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the consequences. Leaders were expected to communicate evolving evidence while absorbing public anger over difficult tradeoffs involving health, economic disruption, education, individual freedom, and equity. This commentary argues that crisis communication should be understood as public health diplomacy: a structured process through which leaders build trust, make values and tradeoffs transparent, engage diverse stakeholders, and adapt decisions as evidence changes. We propose three institutional practices: transparent decision-making frameworks, predefined reassessment checkpoints, and cross-sector advisory structures. We further argue that leadership turnover and chronic vacancies should be treated as indicators of system instability and emergency preparedness. Building public health diplomacy into training and crisis infrastructure can distribute responsibility for difficult decisions, strengthen institutional resilience, and better prepare leaders to protect health and trust when the next crisis arrives.
Related
- Advancing global health diplomacy education in Georgia: a model for capacity building
- Reframing youth suicide as a public health crisis: Where does accountability lie?
- O.5. Scientific session: Public health diplomacy education for a complex world: preparing the future workforce
- Integrating behavioural science into risk and crisis communication in public health
- L.8. Scientific session: Conducting Mental Health Research in Crisis: Lessons from Ukraine for Resilient Public Health
BibTeX
@article{ige2026institutionalizing,
title = {{Institutionalizing public health diplomacy: building trust in crisis.}},
author = {Olusimbo Ige and Dolapo Fakuade},
journal = {Public health reviews},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/phrs.2026.1610349},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42959246},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Institutionalizing public health diplomacy: building trust in crisis.
AU - Olusimbo Ige
AU - Dolapo Fakuade
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/15
JO - Public health reviews
DO - 10.3389/phrs.2026.1610349
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42959246
AB - Public health crises are increasingly becoming diplomatic events. They require leaders to navigate scientific uncertainty while negotiating political, economic, social, and community interests. Yet public health preparedness continues to treat communication primarily as an individual leadership skill rather than as an institutional capacity for negotiation, consensus building, and trust. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the consequences. Leaders were expected to communicate evolving evidence while absorbing public anger over difficult tradeoffs involving health, economic disruption, education, individual freedom, and equity. This commentary argues that crisis communication should be understood as public health diplomacy: a structured process through which leaders build trust, make values and tradeoffs transparent, engage diverse stakeholders, and adapt decisions as evidence changes. We propose three institutional practices: transparent decision-making frameworks, predefined reassessment checkpoints, and cross-sector advisory structures. We further argue that leadership turnover and chronic vacancies should be treated as indicators of system instability and emergency preparedness. Building public health diplomacy into training and crisis infrastructure can distribute responsibility for difficult decisions, strengthen institutional resilience, and better prepare leaders to protect health and trust when the next crisis arrives.
SN - 0301-0422
SN - 2107-6952
ER -