4.2 Article

Public Risk Perceptions and Preventive Behaviors During the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Pandemic

Journal

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/dmp.2014.87

Keywords

risk perceptions; 2009 H1N1 influenza; preventive behavior

Funding

  1. Arizona Department of Health Services through a Health and Human Services preparedness grant
  2. Arizona State University College of Public Program
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2013S1A3A2053959]
  4. National Research Foundation of Korea [2013S1A3A2053959] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: This study examines the public perception of the 2009 H1N1 influenza risk and its association with flu-related knowledge, social contexts, and preventive behaviors during the second wave of the influenza outbreak in Arizona. Methods: Statistical analyses were conducted on survey data, which were collected from a random-digit telephone survey of the general public in Arizona in October 2009. Results: The public perceived different levels of risk regarding the likelihood and their concern about contracting the 2009 H1N1 flu. These measures of risk perception were primarily correlated with people of Hispanic ethnicity, having children in the household, and recent seasonal flu experience in the previous year. The perceived likelihood was not strongly associated with preventive behaviors, whereas the perceived concern was significantly associated with precautionary and preparatory behaviors. The association between perceived concern and precautionary behavior persisted after controlling for demographic characteristics. Conclusions: Pandemic preparedness and response efforts need to incorporate these findings to help develop effective risk communication strategies that properly induce preventive behaviors among the public.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available