Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24608557›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Intentions to perform non-pharmaceutical protective behaviors during influenza outbreaks in Sweden: a cross-sectional study following a mass vaccination campaign.

Toomas Timpka, Armin Spreco, Elin Gursky, Olle Eriksson, Örjan Dahlström, Magnus Strömgren, Joakim Ekberg, Sofie Pilemalm, David Karlsson, Jorma Hinkula and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Toomas TimpkaDepartment of Public Health, Östergötland County Council, Linköping, Sweden; Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Armin SprecoDepartment of Public Health, Östergötland County Council, Linköping, Sweden; Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Elin GurskyNational Strategies Support Directorate, ANSER/Analytic Services Inc, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America.
Olle ErikssonDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Örjan DahlströmLinnaeus Centre HEAD, Department of Behavioural Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Magnus StrömgrenDepartment of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Joakim EkbergDepartment of Public Health, Östergötland County Council, Linköping, Sweden; Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Sofie PilemalmDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
David KarlssonDepartment of Medical and Health Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Jorma HinkulaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Einar HolmDepartment of Geography and Economic History, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Failure to incorporate the beliefs and attitudes of the public into theoretical models of preparedness has been identified as a weakness in strategies to mitigate infectious disease outbreaks. We administered a cross-sectional telephone survey to a representative sample (n = 443) of the Swedish adult population to examine whether self-reported intentions to improve personal hygiene and increase social distancing during influenza outbreaks could be explained by trust in official information, self-reported health (SF-8), sociodemographic factors, and determinants postulated in protection motivation theory, namely threat appraisal and coping appraisal. The interviewees were asked to make their appraisals for two scenarios: a) an influenza with low case fatality and mild lifestyle impact; b) severe influenza with high case fatality and serious disturbances of societal functions. Every second respondent (50.0%) reported high trust in official information about influenza. The proportion that reported intentions to take deliberate actions to improve personal hygiene during outbreaks ranged between 45-85%, while less than 25% said that they intended to increase social distancing. Multiple logistic regression models with coping appraisal as the explanatory factor most frequently contributing to the explanation of the variance in intentions showed strong discriminatory performance for staying home while not ill (mild outbreaks: Area under the curve [AUC] 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.82;0.89), severe outbreaks AUC 0.82 (95% CI 0.77;0.85)) and acceptable performance with regard to avoiding public transportation (AUC 0.78 (0.74;0.82), AUC 0.77 (0.72;0.82)), using handwash products (AUC 0.70 (0.65;0.75), AUC 0.76 (0.71;0.80)), and frequently washing hands (AUC 0.71 (0.66;0.76), AUC 0.75 (0.71;0.80)). We conclude that coping appraisal was the explanatory factor most frequently included in statistical models explaining self-reported intentions to carry out non-pharmaceutical health actions in the Swedish outlined context, and that variations in threat appraisal played a smaller role in these models despite scientific uncertainties surrounding a recent mass vaccination campaign.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeIntentionMass VaccinationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDemographyDisease OutbreaksFemaleHand DisinfectionHumansInfluenza, HumanLogistic ModelsMale

Identifiers

PMID24608557
PMCPMC3946657

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.