Should we stop referring to the pandemic of antimicrobial resistance as silent?

Referring to the ongoing antimicrobial resistance crisis as a 'silent' pandemic has gained popularity, but there are mixed views on whether such a phrase should be used in public health communication. Some researchers have argued that using the term 'silent pandemic' may lower the perceived threat and hinder mobilization efforts to tackle the problem.

I investigated the impact of the phrase 'silent pandemic' on perceived threat levels and mobilization intentions.

In three experiments (n = 1677), participants from the UK's general adult population were randomly allocated to either a 'pandemic' or 'silent pandemic' condition, where the different terms were embedded in statements (Experiment 1) or brief information materials (Experiments 2 and 3). The term 'silent pandemic' was also presented with a brief description of its intended meaning (Experiment 3). The participants expressed their perception of the threat and their mobilization intentions.

In Experiments 1 and 2, referring to the pandemic as silent did not significantly affect the perceived threat (Cohen's d = -0.06; Cohen's d = 0.08, respectively) or mobilization intentions (Cohen's d = -0.07; Cohen's d = 0.11, respectively). However, in Experiment 3, the term 'silent pandemic' decreased the perceived threat and mobilization intentions (Cohen's d = 0.27; Cohen's d = 0.35, respectively).

Describing the pandemic as 'silent' yielded no measurable effects on perceived threat and mobilization intentions but it showed depreciating effects when accompanied by its intended meaning. Taken together, it is advisable to avoid the term.