Why Public Health Messaging Keeps Failing

Public health is about more than vaccines, data dashboards, and emergency alerts. At its core, it’s about people and communication. So when public health messages consistently fall flat, or worse, alienate the very communities they aim to help, we have to ask: what’s going wrong?

The answer isn’t just bad PR. It’s a deeper issue rooted in how health officials communicate during crisis, how they frame complex science, and whether they understand their audience at all.

Let’s start with a case we all lived through: COVID-19. Early in the pandemic, Americans were told not to wear masks. A few weeks later, that changed. Then came shifting quarantine guidelines, booster recommendations, and definitions of “fully vaccinated.” Much of this confusion came from a genuine evolution in scientific understanding- but that nuance was rarely communicated clearly.

In states like Florida, messaging leaned heavily on individual liberty, while in California it centered on government mandates and collective safety. But in both places, inconsistency and poor delivery created skepticism. People didn’t just disagree with the guidance- they stopped trusting the people behind it.

When trust erodes, public health efforts stall. People ignore warnings or turn to misinformation instead.

Right now, misinformation spreads faster than science. That’s partly because anti-science influencers speak in emotional, punchy, relatable ways. Public health often does the opposite: releasing static infographics or over-edited PSAs that feel distant or overly rehearsed. Utah’s 2023 youth mental health campaign is a prime example. Despite investing in billboard awareness campaigns across the state, many teens didn’t engage. They weren’t on highways- they were on Instagram and TikTok, where the messaging didn’t land or wasn’t even present. Effective communication today means competing for attention. Public health doesn’t just need to be correct, it needs to be relevant and accessible.

https://www.toptal.com/designers/brand/wellness-branding

Another common issue is how public health speaks. The terminology, while technically accurate, is often too clinical or complex. Terms like “bivalent booster,” “community transmission rates,” or “high-risk exposure” don’t mean much to someone just trying to understand if they need a new vaccine or if their child should go to school tomorrow. Take the 2022 monkeypox outbreak. Out of concern for stigmatizing the LGBTQ+ community, many agencies avoided directly naming the most affected populations. The intent was protective, but the result was confusion. Clarity matters, especially in a crisis. When the message is vague, people underestimate risk or disengage entirely. We’ve seen this with teen mental health too. Many campaigns default to generalized slogans like “It’s okay to not be okay” but without follow-up action, the messaging feels empty.

What does good public health messaging look like?

1. Be Clear and Direct. Explain what people need to know, why it matters, and what they should do next- clearly and concisely.

2. Acknowledge Uncertainty. Don’t pretend everything is known or final. It’s okay to say, “Here’s what we know now, and we’ll keep updating you as we learn more.” That builds trust, not confusion.

3. Choose the Right Messengers. People trust people they relate to. Public health efforts should partner with teachers, religious leaders, influencers, and community organizers- especially when targeting youth or marginalized groups.

4. Focus on Platforms People Actually Use. Gen Z isn’t checking official websites for updates. They’re scrolling Reels, watching YouTube, and hearing things from creators they follow. Public health messaging has to live where the audience lives.

Good public health policy only works if people believe in it, and that belief starts with communication. You can have the best data, the most effective treatments, and the most well-researched interventions, but if people don’t understand the message, don’t trust the source, or feel talked down to, none of it will stick and it will even create distance. In public health, that distance can mean the difference between someone getting vaccinated or not, seeking mental health support or staying silent, protecting their community or unintentionally putting it at risk. We need to rethink not just what we say, but how, and who, we say it through. The message has to resonate. It has to meet people where they are, in the language they use, through voices they already trust. Public health doesn’t have to sacrifice accuracy to be more human. It just has to care as much about connection as it does about content.

Citations:

Covello V., & Sandman P. (2020). Communicating recommendations in public health emergencies. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 43(6), 450–462.

Nan X., Kumanyika S., & Li C. (2021). Public health messaging during the COVID‑19 pandemic in the U.S. Frontiers in Communication, 2(34), 1–17.