Flu Outbreaks And Crisis Management Solutions
Overview
Effective crisis learning is crucial for enhancing crisis management strategies. By reflecting on past public health crises, researchers and practitioners can gain valuable insights for future crisis readiness, particularly in managing critical risks and threats to public health and safety. Existing research on infectious disease risks (IDRs) and related health crises has rarely explored how different infectious diseases affect individuals’ risk perceptions and responses. This study aims to fill this gap by analyzing data from an online survey of 517 US adults conducted early in the outbreak of a novel infectious disease, before it was declared a global pandemic.
The survey provides insights into how participants perceived the health risks of a novel disease compared to a more familiar one, such as seasonal influenza. The findings reveal that the familiar disease was perceived as having a higher personal risk, while the novel disease was seen as more severe. Furthermore, perceptions of risk and severity influenced individuals’ intentions to take preventive measures. Trust in government also played a role in moderating these responses. These results offer valuable implications for improving communication about infectious disease risks during public health crises.
Introduction
The recent pandemic has highlighted the need for researchers and practitioners to effectively share research that aids in addressing current and future public health crises. One key focus for future research is understanding and managing persistent and severe crisis issues, such as those arising from simultaneous risk factors. For instance, the overlapping threat of influenza and a novel respiratory virus was not communicated effectively in the early stages of the pandemic.
Effective communication about infectious diseases is crucial for public safety. The current pandemic has emphasized the importance of advancing research on infectious disease risk (IDR) communication. Despite extensive studies on various infectious diseases, there is a gap in understanding how simultaneous diseases impact public perception and responses.
This study investigates how people perceived risks associated with a novel respiratory virus compared to influenza and how these perceptions influenced their behavior. It also explores how trust in government affects the relationship between risk perception and behavioral responses. The research aims to provide insights for improving IDR communication and enhancing preparedness for future outbreaks.
Key aspects examined include:
- Perceived Risk: Research shows that perceived risk, rather than actual risk, drives behavior. The study measures perceived susceptibility and severity of different diseases to predict preventive actions.
- Disease Novelty: Novelty influences risk perception, with new diseases often perceived as more severe.
- Preventive Behavior: Risk perception significantly affects intentions to take preventive actions, with differences observed between familiar and novel diseases.
- Trust in Government: Trust in government plays a crucial role in shaping responses to public health recommendations. The study explores how this trust moderates the relationship between risk perception and preventive behavior.
The findings aim to enhance IDR communication strategies and guide future research to better understand and respond to infectious disease outbreaks.
Method
Between late February and early March 2020, Qualtrics recruited 517 U.S. adults (18+) for an online survey. Participants were selected based on their concerns about either the flu or a novel virus and their openness to vaccination. They were divided into two groups: one focusing on the flu and the other on the novel virus, with 257 and 260 participants respectively.
The average participant age was 46 (SD = 17.15), with a distribution across age groups: 18–24 (13%), 25–34 (18%), 35–44 (17%), 45–54 (17%), 55–64 (16.4%), and 65+ (18.6%). Gender distribution was nearly equal, with 49.3% male and 50.5% female, and 0.2% identifying as ‘other’. Ethnic distribution included 76.2% Caucasian, 10.8% African American, 5.8% Latino, 5.6% Asian, 1% Multiracial, 0.4% Native American, and 0.2% other. Household income ranged from under $25,000 (17.8%) to $100,000 and above (26.7%).
To assess perceived risk, three items were adapted from Witte (1996), measuring beliefs about the likelihood and possibility of contracting the illness. The average response was 4.33 (SD = 1.59), with a high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .87). Perceived severity was evaluated with three items, showing an average score of 5.79 (SD = 1.20), also with high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .87).
Behavioral intention to take preventive actions was measured using three items, reflecting a mean score of 5.62 (SD = 1.49) and very high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .93). Trust in government was assessed through seven items, yielding an average score of 4.92 (SD = 1.23) with strong reliability (Cronbach’s α = .91).
Result
To evaluate hypotheses H1, H2, and a research question, we conducted four moderated mediation analyses using Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS Macro model 7 with 5000 bootstrap estimates to generate a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (Preacher et al., 2007). In the first analysis, IDR type was the independent variable, behavioral intention was the dependent variable, trust in government was the moderator, and perceived IDR susceptibility (H2a) acted as the mediator. For the second analysis, we used the same independent variable and moderator with IDR severity (H2b) as the mediator. H1 proposed that the flu group would report higher perceived IDR susceptibility, whereas the other group would report greater perceived IDR severity. Results showed that the flu group had significantly higher perceived IDR susceptibility than the other group (b = -1.15, SE = 0.56, t(507) = -2.07, p < .05), and the other group reported higher IDR severity (b = 1.34, SE = 0.39, t(507) = 3.45, p < .001), confirming H1a and H1b.
Regarding the effects of IDR type on behavioral intention, H2a and H2b were tested. H2a predicted that higher perceived IDR susceptibility would lead to greater behavioral intention toward both the flu and other illnesses, which was confirmed (b = 0.08, SE = 0.04, t(508) = 2.06, p < .05). H2b predicted that higher perceived IDR severity would also result in greater behavioral intention, which was supported (b = 0.44, SE = 0.05, t(508) = 8.17, p < .001).
The analysis also tested if trust in government moderates the indirect effect of IDR type on behavioral intention through susceptibility and severity. For susceptibility, no significant interaction was found (b = -0.33, SE = 0.12, t = -2.79, p < .05). However, for severity, the moderated mediation effect was significant (effect = -0.07, SE = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.15, -0.00]). The indirect effect was higher with lower trust in government: low (indirect effect = 0.33, SE = 0.08, 95% CI [0.19, 0.49]), moderate (indirect effect = 0.26, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [0.16, 0.37]), and high (indirect effect = 0.16, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27]). The direct effect of IDR type on behavioral intention was not significant (b = -0.24, SE = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.01]).
Conclusion
The study aimed to investigate how individuals’ perceptions of different infectious diseases, specifically a novel virus and the seasonal flu, affect their behavioral responses. It also sought to understand the role of government trust in shaping these perceptions and responses. By analyzing survey data collected at an early stage of the outbreak of a new virus, prior to its formal pandemic declaration by the World Health Organization (WHO), the research provides valuable insights into public risk communication and crisis management.
The study revealed that people tend to perceive novel diseases as more severe compared to familiar ones, such as the flu. However, they often view themselves as less susceptible to novel diseases. This phenomenon can be attributed to optimistic bias, where individuals underestimate their own risk due to a lack of detailed information about the new disease. In contrast, the flu, being a well-known and frequently discussed disease, is perceived as having higher personal risk due to its established media coverage and personal experience with it. This discrepancy between perceived severity and susceptibility is significant because it affects how individuals react to different health threats.
The research confirms that risk perceptions—both the perceived severity and susceptibility—have a strong influence on individuals’ intentions to engage in preventive actions. For novel diseases, emphasizing the severity in public health messages is more likely to motivate people to take preventive measures. On the other hand, for familiar diseases, highlighting the risk of susceptibility is more effective in encouraging preventive behavior. This finding suggests that health communication strategies should be tailored based on whether the disease is perceived as new or familiar.
An important aspect of the study is its examination of how trust in government affects risk communication. The findings indicate that when people trust the government, messages about familiar diseases, like the flu, are more likely to drive preventive behaviors through enhanced perceptions of severity. Conversely, when trust in government is low, individuals are more likely to follow preventive recommendations for novel diseases, driven by increased perceived severity and uncertainty about the new threat.
These findings have several practical implications for public health communication:
– For Novel Diseases: Messages should focus on the potential severity of the disease to prompt preventive actions. Utilizing fear-based strategies, supported by empirical data and real-life examples, can be effective in influencing behavior.
– For Familiar Diseases: Communication should highlight personal susceptibility to increase perceived risk and motivate preventive measures. A multi-channel approach, including traditional and social media, community engagement, and educational campaigns, can enhance awareness and encourage behavior change.
Limitations and Future Research
The study acknowledges several limitations, including the timing of data collection and the general nature of the trust measures used. Future research should explore how perceptions of infectious diseases evolve over time, particularly in response to ongoing public health crises. Additionally, more specific dimensions of trust in government should be investigated, including variations at local, state, and federal levels. Examining a broader range of infectious diseases and their communication challenges will also contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of risk communication strategies.
In conclusion, the study highlights the importance of adapting health communication strategies to effectively address different types of infectious diseases. It underscores the need for a nuanced approach that considers both the nature of the disease and the level of public trust in government. By improving our understanding of these factors, public health professionals can develop more effective strategies to manage health risks and encourage preventive behaviors, ultimately contributing to better health outcomes and crisis management.
Oncology Related Tools
Other
Latest Research
