Transparency is a familiar principle in pharmaceutical communications. But transparency is not simply about making data available. It is about making it understandable.

During the pandemic, vast amounts of information were shared with the public, yet many people still struggled to interpret what it meant for them personally. Risk percentages, clinical terminology and regulatory language can create distance between the science and the audience.

Accessible communication matters. When language becomes overly technical or difficult to navigate, it can reinforce confusion. Equally, honest disclosure of rare risks, while essential, requires careful framing to prevent selective amplification by those who seek to mislead.

Healthcare communications is the art of translating complexity into clarity without losing accuracy.

Another lesson from COVID-19 is that information alone does not necessarily lead to action.

Many people who delayed vaccination did not reject the science outright. Instead, they struggled to see the personal relevance. If the perceived risk of disease felt low, the urgency of vaccination diminished.

This is where behavioural insight becomes critical. Communicating vaccine efficacy statistics or clinical trial outcomes may satisfy regulatory requirements, but it does not always address the question most people are asking: Why does this matter to me?

The recent introduction of the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine into England’s routine childhood immunisation schedule illustrates this challenge clearly. For decades, chickenpox has been viewed by many parents as an unavoidable childhood illness rather than a preventable one. Yet, from 2026, children in England are being offered protection through a combined MMRV vaccine at 12 and 18 months, following national recommendations and NHS rollout. Communicating why this change matters, will be as important as explaining the science behind the vaccine itself.

Health communication works best when it connects scientific evidence to real-world consequences. Community-sourced insights will inform whether this means protecting family members, preventing complications, or maintaining community health.  Relevance drives motivation far more effectively than abstract data points.

For some audiences, messaging perceived as coming directly from pharmaceutical companies, or, in some markets, government health bodies can reinforce existing scepticism. That does not mean pharma should step back from the conversation, but it does mean trust often travels through trusted people. This makes investment in independent, community-rooted voices more important than ever.

Healthcare professionals remain among the most trusted voices in vaccine conversations. Community leaders, patient advocates and local organisations can also play an important role in translating information into culturally relevant messages.

Partnerships with these voices can help ensure that vaccine communication reaches people in ways that feel credible and familiar.

The theme of World Immunization Week 2026, ‘For every generation, vaccines work’, speaks to the extraordinary legacy of vaccination programmes. Diseases that once caused widespread illness and death have been dramatically reduced in many parts of the world.

But maintaining that progress requires constant attention to public confidence. Health communication therefore remains central to the success of vaccination programmes. Its role is not simply to promote vaccines, but to create understanding: explaining benefits and risks clearly; addressing concerns openly and ensuring that evidence feels relevant to everyday lives.

For those working in health communications, the task is both straightforward and challenging: listen carefully to the questions people are asking; respond with clarity and empathy.

Innovation in vaccines gives us a compelling scientific narrative. Communication, especially in a noisier and more contested information environment, determines whether the narrative reaches the people who need it most.