Author
Listed:
- Thu, Hein
- Thu, Myat Min
- Ali, Shahmir H.
Abstract
Polycrisis (intersections of multiple, compounding crises) fracture health communication. Despite rising frequency in Southeast Asia, empirical evidence on how health information is adapted and diffused is scarce. Myanmar's 2025 earthquake, amid armed conflict and internet shutdowns, offered a critical case. Participatory mind-mapping was conducted with 24 stakeholders, including humanitarian and health workers, media actors, and community leaders, representing a diverse range of experts and implementors involved in the crisis response. In each session, participants mapped how health information flowed across actors, channels, and barriers. Reflexive thematic analysis of maps, transcripts, and notes identified diffusion pathways and adaptive strategies. Diffusion spanned assessment, planning, and delivery but was seldom linear. Actors shifted among messaging apps, satellite links, radio, and in-person relay as connectivity, censorship, and security changed. Credibility increased when messages were community-verified, paired with aid, and localized to resource constraints (e.g., substituting supplies assumed available in global protocols with local alternatives). Communities organized their own coordination arrangements, such as household ledgers, that sometimes outperformed formalized systems. Digital innovations shaped operations: Starlink restored connectivity during blackouts; Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and platform switching (Telegram, Viber) bypassed censorship; and verification networks sought to counter misinformation. Reliance on digital channels alone was inadequate given limited literacy, surveillance, and displacement; radio, printed flyers, and religious or community gatherings remained essential for many groups. In Myanmar's polycrisis context, and potentially in comparable settings, findings suggest resilient diffusion may benefit from hybrid approaches combining new connectivity tools (satellite internet, VPNs, mesh networks) with trusted offline and community-led practices, attending to equity, safety, and appropriateness.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:399:y:2026:i:c:s0277953626003175. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.