Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26603602›Full record

ArticlePublic health2015

Who is sceptical about emerging public health threats? Results from 39 national surveys in the United Kingdom.

G J Rubin, Y Finn, H W W Potts, S Michie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

G J RubinKing's College London, Department of Psychological Medicine, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RJ, UK. Electronic address: Gideon.rubin@kcl.ac.uk.
Y FinnKing's College London, Department of Psychological Medicine, Weston Education Centre, Cutcombe Road, London SE5 9RJ, UK.
H W W PottsUniversity College London, Centre for Health Informatics and Multiprofessional Education, UCL Institute of Health Informatics, London, UK. Electronic address: h.potts@ucl.ac.uk.
S MichieUniversity College London, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, London, UK. Electronic address: s.michie@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health 09/84/98
6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude to HealthInfluenza A Virus, H1N1 SubtypePandemicsAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfluenza, HumanMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomYoung AdultCommunicationInfluenzaPandemicPsychologyScepticism

Identifiers

PMID26603602
PMCPMC4684148

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.