ArticlePublic health2015
Who is sceptical about emerging public health threats? Results from 39 national surveys in the United Kingdom.
Article in Public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How to inform the public about protective actions in a nuclear or radiological incident: a systematic review.The lancet. Psychiatry · 2019Pooled it
- The COVID-19 Pandemic Mental Health Questionnaire (CoPaQ): psychometric evaluation and compliance with countermeasures in psychiatric inpatients and non-clinical individuals.BMC psychiatry · 2021Article
- Acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine and its determinants: evidence from a large sample study in Bangladesh.Heliyon · 2021Article
- Correlates of Health-Protective Behavior During the Initial Days of the COVID-19 Outbreak in Norway.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- What are the factors driving antimicrobial resistance? Perspectives from a public event in London, England.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Article
- Predictors of influenza vaccine uptake during the 2009/10 influenza A H1N1v ('swine flu') pandemic: Results from five national surveys in the United Kingdom.Preventive medicine · 2016Article
- Twitter Influence on UK Vaccination and Antiviral Uptake during the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMembers of the public are often sceptical about warnings of an impending public health crisis. Breaking through this scepticism is important if we are to convince people to take urgent protective action. In this paper we explored correlates of perceiving that 'too much fuss' was being made about the 2009/10 influenza A H1N1v ('swine flu') pandemic. STUDY
designA secondary analysis of data from 39 nationally representative telephone surveys conducted in the UK during the pandemic.
methodsEach cross-sectional survey (combined n = 42,420) collected data over a three day period and asked participants to state whether they agreed or disagreed that 'too much fuss is being made about the risk of swine flu.'
resultsOverall, 55.1% of people agreed or strongly agreed with this sentiment. Perceiving that too much fuss was being made was associated with: being male, being white, being generally healthy, trusting most in a primary care physician to provide advice, not knowing someone who had contracted the illness, believing you know a lot about the outbreak, not wishing to receive additional information about the outbreak and possessing worse factual knowledge about the outbreak than other people.
conclusionsIn future disease outbreaks merely providing factual information is unlikely to engage people who are sceptical about the need to take action. Instead, messages which challenge their perceived knowledge and which present case studies of people who have been affected may prove more effective, especially when delivered through trusted channels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.