Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:21:49.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Communicating Public Health Advice After a Chemical Spill: Results From National Surveys in the United Kingdom and Poland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2013

Julia M. Pearce ,
G. James Rubin ,
Richard Amlôt ,
Simon Wessely  and
M. Brooke Rogers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to enhance public health preparedness for incidents that involve the large-scale release of a hazardous substance by examining factors likely to influence public responses to official guidance on how to limit their exposure.

Methods

An online demographically representative survey was conducted in the United Kingdom (n = 601) and Poland (n = 602) to test the strength of association of trust in authorities, anxiety, threat, and coping appraisals with the intention to comply with advice to shelter in place following a hypothetical chemical spill. The impact of ease of compliance and style of message presentation were also examined.

Results

Participants were more likely to comply if at home when the incident happened, but message presentation had little impact. Coping appraisals and trust were key predictors of compliance, but threat appraisals were associated with noncompliance. Anxiety was seen to promote behavioral change. UK participants were more likely to comply than Polish participants.

Conclusions

Successful crisis communications during an emergency should aim to influence perceptions regarding the efficacy of recommended behaviors, the difficulties people may have in following advice, and perceptions about the cost of following recommended behaviors. Generic principles of crisis communication may need adaptation for national contexts. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;7:65-74)

Keywords

communicationsdisastersbehaviortrust
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 65 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Lemyre, L, Corneil, W, Johnson, C, etal. Psychosocial considerations about children and radiological events. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2010;142:17-23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Lau, JTF, Yang, X, Tsui, H, Kim, JH. Monitoring community responses to the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong: from day 10 to day 62. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(11):864-870.Google Scholar
3.Tang, CSK, Wong, C-Y. An outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome: predictors of health behaviors and effect of community prevention measures in Hong Kong, China. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(11):1887-1888.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Tang, CSK, Wong, C-Y. Factors influencing the wearing of facemasks to prevent the severe acute respiratory syndrome among adult Chinese in Hong Kong. Prev Med. 2004;39(6):1187-1193.Google Scholar
5.Rogers, MB, Amlôt, R, Rubin, GJ, Wessely, S, Krieger, K. Mediating the social and psychological impacts of terrorist attacks: the role of risk perception and risk communication. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2007;19(3):279-288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Glik, DC, Drury, A, Cavanaugh, C, Shoaf, K. What not to say: risk communication for botulism. Biosecur Bioterror. 2008;6(1):93-107.Google Scholar
7.Rubin, GJ, Amlôt, R, Page, L, Wessely, S. Public perceptions, anxiety, and behaviour change in relation to the swine flu outbreak: cross sectional telephone survey. BMJ. 2009;339:b2651.Google Scholar
8.Gierlach, E, Belsher, BE, Beutler, LE. Cross-cultural differences in risk perceptions of disasters. Risk Anal. 2010;30(10):1539-1549.Google Scholar
9.Rubin, GJ, Brewin, CR, Greenberg, N, Simpson, J, Wessely, S. Psychological and behavioural reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005: cross sectional survey of a representative sample of Londoners. BMJ. 2005;331(7517):606.Google Scholar
10.Eisenman, DP, Glik, D, Ong, M, etal. Terrorism-related fear and avoidance behavior in a multiethnic urban population. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(1):168-174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Wray, RJ, Becker, SM, Henderson, N, etal. Communicating with the public about emerging health threats: lessons from the Pre-Event Message Development Project. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(12):2214-2222.Google Scholar
12.Hyer, RH, Covello, VT. Effective Media Communication During Public Health Emergencies. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.Google Scholar
13. The Council of the European Union Working Party on Public Health. Lessons to be learned from the A/H1N1pandemic - Health Security in the European Union - Adoption of Council conclusions. Brussels, Belgium: Council of the European Union; July 28, 2010. http://register.consiliumeuropa.eu/pdf/en/10/st12/st12665.en10.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2011.Google Scholar
14.Rogers, RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975;91:93-114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Maddux, JE, Rogers, RW. Protection motivation theory and self-efficacy: a revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1983;19:469-479.Google Scholar
16.Floyd, DL, Prentice-Dunn, S, Rogers, RW. A meta-analysis of research on Protection Motivation Theory. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30:407-729.Google Scholar
17.Milne, S, Sheeran, P, Orbell, S. Prediction and intervention in health-related behavior: a meta-analytic review of protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30:106-143.Google Scholar
18.Ruiter, RAC, Abraham, C, Kork, G. Scary warnings and rational precautions: a review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychol Health. 2001;16:613-630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Kasperson, RE, Pijawka, D. Societal response to hazards and major hazard events: comparing natural and technological hazards. In: Kasperson JX, Kasperson RE, eds. The Social Contours of Risk. Volume 2: Risk Analysis, Corporations & the Globalisation of Risk. London: Earthscan; 2005:29-49.Google Scholar
20.Ziegler, DJ, Brunn, SD, Johnson, JH Jr. Evacuation from a nuclear technological disaster. Geogr Rev. 1981;71(1):1-16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Department of Health. Pandemic influenza preparedness programme: statistical legacy group - a report for the Chief Medical Officer. December 3, 2010. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_122750. Accessed July 14, 2011.Google Scholar
22.Hine, D. The 2009 Influenza Pandemic. An independent review of the UK response to the 2009 influenza pandemic. London: Cabinet Office; July 2010. http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/the2009influenzapandemic_acc.pdf. Accessed August 2, 2011.Google Scholar
23.Wiedemann, PM, Schiitz, H. The precautionary principle and risk perception: experimental studies in the EMF area. Environ Health Perspect. 2005;113(4):402-405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Marteau, TM, Bekker, H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31(Pt 3):301-306.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Tluczek, A, Henriques, JB, Brown, RL. Support for the reliability and validity of a six-item state anxiety scale derived from the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. J Nurs Meas. 2009;17(1):19-28.Google Scholar
26.Teasdale, E, Yardley, L, Schlotz, W, etal. The importance of coping appraisal in behavioural responses to pandemic flu. Br J Health Psychol [published online March 7, 2011]. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8287.2011.02017.x.Google Scholar
27.Schuster, MA, Stein, BD, Jaycox, LH, etal. A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(20):1507-1512.Google Scholar
28.Rubin, GJ, Potts, HW, Michie, S. The impact of communications about swine flu (influenza A H1N1v) on public responses to the outbreak: results from 36 national telephone surveys in the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2010;14(34):183-266.Google Scholar
29.Webb, TL, Sheeran, P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull. 2006;132(2):249-268.Google Scholar
30.Ebrahim, GJ. Common pitfalls. In: Ebrahim GJ, Sullivan KR, eds. Mother and Child Health: Research Methods. London: Book-Aid (Oxford University Press); 1978: chap 13. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/tropej/online/ce_ch13.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2011.Google Scholar
31.Dolnicar, S, Gmn, B. Cross-cultural differences in survey response patterns. Int Mark Rev. 2007;24(2):127-143.Google Scholar
32.Harzing, A-W. Response styles in cross-national survey research. A 26-country study. Int J Cross-cultural Manage. 2006;6(2):243-266.Google Scholar