In a country as vast and diverse as India, grappling with a substantial disease burden and a population with varying levels of education, one of the most significant challenges lies in effective communication. Whether it’s implementing Mass Drug Administration programs to combat life-threatening diseases like Lymphatic Filariasis or ensuring the success of a comprehensive COVID-19 vaccination drive, governments frequently rely on the expertise of health communicators. The  challenge for these ommunicators is to convey verfied factual messages that factor different cultures and sensitivities within the population.

Anjali Nayyar, executive Vice President for Global Health Strategies (GHS) – a consulting company is a leading name in this field. With her deep understanding of policy, advocacy and communications in complicated political environments like in India and many African nations, she has played a crucial role in crafting communication strategies for raising awareness about protocols for Lymphatic Filariasis, Visceral Leishmaniasis and other neglected diseases in India. In an exclusive chat with Health On Air she gives  rich insights into the world of health communication and how her work with CGS is impacting communities and ensuring their physical and mental well-being.

Excerpts from the Interview:

1. Can you please share some insights about Global Health Strategies (GHS) and its role in shaping health-seeking behaviors and combating neglected diseases?**

A. Global Health Strategies originated from the HIV/AIDS activism movement. Our realization was clear: innovations alone would not suffice; the critical challenge was ensuring that essential messages, services, and goods reached those who needed them most. Consequently, GHS was established with a specific focus on advocacy and communications.

2. How has GHS utilized communications and advocacy to tackle neglected diseases, and what has been the impact of these efforts?

A. GHS began its involvement in neglected tropical diseases in 2012, following a CEO roundtable led by Bill Gates. Our focus has encompassed diseases like Lymphatic Filariasis and Visceral Leishmaniasis in India, primarily through evidence-based policy actions and communications. Our approach tailors evidence for various audiences, including policymakers, communities, and the media. We aim to highlight challenges in an audience-centric manner.

3. Can you elaborate on the strategies used to communicate with different stakeholders, such as policymakers, communities, and the media?

A. Our approach varies based on the audience. We partner with Community Radios to reach the right people. In the media sphere, we ensure experts give the right information. With policymakers, we provide locally relevant evidence. For communities, we engage local leaders, including Pradhans, ensuring they receive information about evidence, problems, and solutions, thus driving change at the grassroots level.

4. How have these interventions evolved compared to past approaches in disease eradication, especially regarding community involvement and reaching local leaders like Pradhans?

A. Initially, we used methods like wall paintings, leaflets, pamphlets, and visual materials for community-level information, education, and communication. This evolved into behavior change communications. We’ve learned that addressing both the demand and supply sides is essential. Leaders like Pradhans play a crucial role, especially when informed about government policies and their rights, in driving local change. Robust communication and oversight platforms are vital at the grassroots level.

5. How do GHS’s interventions in India compare with those in other countries, and what strategies have proven successful?

A. Strategies depend on the local context but broadly remain consistent. For example, community radio has been effective across Africa, and we can learn from these experiences. The key is adapting strategies to suit local needs while maintaining the core approach.

6. What challenges have you encountered while implementing these interventions, particularly regarding cultural contexts and resistance to change?

A: Cultural context often leads to resistance and suspicion of new ideas. Overcoming this requires community members to speak up or recognize the value of changes. For instance, in Mass Drug Administration, people sometimes discarded medicines due to unexplained side effects. Community radio stations, providing contextualized communication from within the community, play a pivotal role in changing behavior.

 7. What are your thoughts on audio-based health partnerships, such as community radio or podcasts, and their advantages and disadvantages in reaching diverse audiences?

A: Community radio offers direct communication benefits but may have limited reach due to its contextual nature. It’s particularly valuable for addressing deep-seated issues in specific geographic areas. Podcasts’ effectiveness depends on target audiences and tailored strategies. While social media is crowded, donors increasingly focus on it. Serious players seek deeper penetration, even if it means reaching smaller, well-informed audiences in specific villages and panchayats.

8. What do you envision as the future of audio broadcasting platforms in managing health issues?

A: Community radio has untapped potential in India, much like its significant role in addressing various health issues in Africa. It limits misinformation and has advantages over social media. During the COVID-19 pandemic, community radio, alongside Twitter, played essential roles and it remains a powerful tool in addressing health challenges.