Medical countermeasures, including new drugs and vaccines, are necessary to protect the public's health from novel diseases and terrorist threats. Experience with the 2001 anthrax attack and the 2009 H1N1 pandemic suggest that there is limited willingness to accept such drugs and that minority groups may respond differently from others. We conducted 148 intercept interviews in the metropolitan Washington, DC, area, examining 2 hypothetical scenarios: a new respiratory virus and public exposure to high levels of radiation. Findings provide insights into key factors that affect whether diverse members of the public comply with recommended protective actions like taking emergency authorized vaccines. These insights can help improve how public health practitioners communicate during uncertain times.
Medical countermeasures, including new drugs and vaccines, are necessary to protect the public's health from novel diseases and terrorist threats, but there is sometimes limited willingness to accept such drugs, and minority groups may respond differently from others. The authors conducted interviews in the metropolitan Washington, DC, area, examining 2 hypothetical scenarios: a new respiratory virus and public exposure to high levels of radiation. Findings provide insights into factors that affect whether members of the public comply with recommended protective actions like taking emergency authorized vaccines.
ScullyCG, ForrestS, GaleottiL, SchwartzSB, StraussDG. Advancing regulatory science to bring novel medical devices for use in emergency care to market: the role of the Food and Drug Administration. Ann Emerg Med, 2015; 65(4):400-403.
4.
ColemanCN. Fukushima and the future of radiation research. Radiat Res, 2013; 179(1):1-8.
QuinnSC, KumarS, FreimuthVS, KidwellK, MusaD. Public willingness to take a vaccine or drug under Emergency Use Authorization during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Biosecur Bioterror, 2009; 7(3):275-290.
QuinnSC, HilyardK, Castaneda-AngaritaN, FreimuthVS. Public acceptance of peramivir during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic: implications for other drugs or vaccines under Emergency Use Authorizations. Disaster Med Public Health Prep, 2015; 9(2):166-174.
12.
WrayR, JupkaK. What does the public want to know in the event of a terrorist attack using plague?. Biosecur Bioterror, 2004; 2(3):208-215.
13.
RubinGJ, ChowdhuryAK, AmlôtR. How to communicate with the public about chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear terrorism: a systematic review of the literature. Biosecur Bioterror, 2012; 10(4):383-395.
14.
ReynoldsB, GaldoJ, SoklerK. Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2002.
15.
FreimuthVS, MusaD, HilyardK, QuinnSC, KimK. Trust during the early stages of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. J Health Commun, 2014; 19(3):321-339.
16.
QuinnSC, ParmerJ, FreimuthVS, HilyardKM, MusaD, KimKH. Exploring communication, trust in government, and vaccination intention later in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: results of a national survey. Biosecur Bioterror, 2013; 11(2):96-106.
17.
QuinnSC, ThomasT, KumarS. The anthrax vaccine and research: reactions from postal workers and public health professionals. Biosecur Bioterror, 2008; 6(4):321-333.
18.
SiegristM, ZinggA. The role of public trust during pandemics: implications for crisis communication. Eur Psychol, 2014; 19(1):23-32.
19.
LarsonHJ. Negotiating vaccine acceptance in an era of reluctance. Hum Vaccin Immunother, 2013; 9(8):1779-1781.
20.
BangerterA, KringsF, MoutonA, GillesI, GreenEG, ClémenceA. Longitudinal investigation of public trust in institutions relative to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Switzerland. PLoS One, 2012; 7(11):e49806.
21.
WrayR, RiversJ, WhitworthA, JupkaK, ClementsB. Public perceptions about trust in emergency risk communication: qualitative research findings. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters, 2006; 24(1):45-75.
ChenNT. Predicting vaccination intention and benefit and risk perceptions: the incorporation of affect, trust, and television influence in a dual-mode model. Risk Anal, 2015; 35(7):1268-1280.
24.
CairnsG, de AndradeM, MacDonaldL. Reputation, relationships, risk communication, and the role of trust in the prevention and control of communicable disease: a review. J Health Commun, 2013; 18(12):1550-1565.
25.
QuinnSC. Crisis and emergency risk communication in a pandemic: a model for building capacity and resilience of minority communities. Health Promot Pract, 2008; 9(4 Suppl):18S-25S.
26.
LiuB, BartzL, DukeN. Communicating crisis uncertainty: a review of the knowledge gaps. Public Relations Review, 2016; 42(3):479-487.
27.
LachlanKA, SpencePR, NelsonLD. Gender differences in negative psychological responses to crisis news: the case of the I-35W collapse. Commun Res Rep, 2010; 27(1):38-48.
28.
PaekHJ, HilyardK, FreimuthVS, BargeJK, MindlinM. Public support for government actions during a flu pandemic: lessons learned from a statewide survey. Health Promot Pract, 2008; 9(4 Suppl):60S-72S.
CovelloVT, PetersRG, WojteckiJG, HydeRC. Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health, 2001; 78(2):382-391.
31.
BishA, YardleyL, NicollA, MichieS. Factors associated with uptake of vaccination against pandemic influenza: a systematic review. Vaccine, 2011; 29(38):6472-6484.
32.
WeinsteinND, KwitelA, McCaulKD, MagnanRE, GerrardM, GibbonsFX. Risk perceptions: assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Health Psychol, 2007; 26(2):146-151.
33.
SavoiaE, LinL, ViswanathK. Communications in public health emergency preparedness: a systematic review of the literature. Biosecur Bioterror, 2013; 11(3):170-184.
34.
HornikJ, EllisS. Strategies to secure compliance for a mall intercept interview. Public Opin Q, 1988; 52(4):539.
35.
LindlofTR, TaylorBC. Qualitative Communication Research Methods. 3d ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011.
36.
RainsSA, TukachinskyR. An examination of the relationships among uncertainty, appraisal, and information-seeking behavior proposed in uncertainty management theory. Health Commun, 2015; 30(4):339-349.
37.
CorbinJM, StraussAL, StraussAL. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3d ed. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2008.
38.
PennebakerJW, BoydRL, JordanK, BlackburnK. The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. University of Texas, Austin. 2015.
39.
SlovicP. Perception of risk from radiation. Radiation Protection Dosimetry, 1996; 88(3-4):165-180.
40.
RossCE, MirowskyJ. Socially-desirable response and acquiescence in a cross-cultural survey of mental health. J Health Soc Behav, 1984; 25(2):189-197.
41.
CrowneDP, MarloweD. A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. J Consult Psychol, 1960; 24(4):349-354.
42.
PechorroP, Ayala-NunesL, OliveiraJP, NunesC, GoncalvesRA. Psychometric properties of the socially desirable response set-5 among incarcerated male and female juvenile offenders. Int J Law Psychiatry, 2016; 49(Pt A):17-21.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
