Health communication: between trust, behavior and responsibility

Facts alone are often not enough to really reach and engage people. If you want to design effective communication in the health context, you need to understand how people think, feel and act - and psychological models provide valuable orientation for this. The Health Belief Model, for example, shows that people tend towards health-promoting behaviour when they perceive a personal risk, recognize the benefits of a measure, assess possible obstacles as surmountable and receive concrete impulses for action. Communication that specifically addresses these elements without triggering fear increases the chance that information will turn into real change. The theory of planned behaviour works in a similar way: it emphasizes that actions are strongly dependent on one's own attitude, the social norms in the environment and the perceived control over one's own decision. So if you believe that healthy eating makes sense, that your social environment supports it and that you can afford it, you will be more willing to adapt your behavior accordingly. A central element that plays a role in almost all models is self-efficacy - i.e. the perceived ability to successfully carry out a certain action. It is a central component of any effective health communication and should be consciously reinforced in every message.

But communication is not just a science - it is also a craft. And in many ways it is marketing. It is also about recognizing needs, developing targeted messages and engaging people emotionally. In a way, health communication is "marketing for good" - with a clear ethical mission. While traditional marketing is primarily aimed at consumption, health communication aims to promote sustainable changes in behavior. This requires more than just good slogans. It requires a deep understanding of target groups, psychological barriers and the social contexts in which people make decisions. A vaccination campaign that aims to build trust works differently to an anti-smoking campaign that aims to shock with drastic images. And both must be careful not to cross the threshold at which people feel patronized and fall into a kind of psychological defensiveness - reactance.

Reactance is a real risk, especially in the health sector. Anyone who works too much with pressure or fear appeals in commercials or political campaigns, for example, easily provokes the opposite of what is desired. People feel threatened in their autonomy and react with rejection - even if they actually know rationally that the message makes sense. In addition, there is a huge emotional fallout: health affects us existentially. It is closely linked to fears, hopes, body images and personal experiences. Communicating here requires a great deal of specialist knowledge and special sensitivity. Not everything that is factually correct is also communicatively clever.

What's more, health communication often takes place in a regulated environment. Data protection, ethical standards, legal restrictions - all of these limit what can be said and how it can be said. This clearly distinguishes it from the free game of brand advertising. At the same time, the pressure to communicate effectively is increasing: Social media is accelerating debates, disinformation is spreading rapidly, trust has become a scarce commodity.

All of this shows: Health communication is a sensitive, complex field that is far more than just communicating medical facts. It is a strategic discipline that must combine psychological know-how, communicative creativity and ethical awareness. If it succeeds, it can empower people, save lives and make societies healthier. If it fails, it leaves behind uncertainty, resistance - and sometimes even damage. Therefore, anyone who talks about health must not only know what to say, but above all how to say it - and for whom.