Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T05:52:26.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk Communication During the 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) Pandemic: Stakeholder Experiences From Eight European Countries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2015

Rasmus Cloes ,
Amena Ahmad  and
Ralf Reintjes
Rasmus Cloes
Affiliation:
Department of Life Sciences, HAW Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Amena Ahmad*
Affiliation:
Department of Life Sciences, HAW Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Ralf Reintjes
Affiliation:
Department of Life Sciences, HAW Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Amena Ahmad, MD, MPH, Department Health Sciences, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Ulmenliet 20, 21033 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to assess professional stakeholders’ perceptions of the risk-communication difficulties faced during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in Europe.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with experts involved in the management of the 2009 swine flu pandemic from different European countries. The interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded.

Results

A total of 25 experts from 8 European countries were interviewed: 9 from the micro-level, 10 from the meso-level, and 6 from the macro-level of employment. The interviews revealed 3 main themes: vaccine issues, communication issues, and general problems. As reasons for the low vaccination coverage, stakeholders mentioned the late arrival of the vaccines, the moderate character of the pandemic, vaccine safety concerns, and a general skepticism toward vaccination. Communication needs varied between the different levels of employment: macro- and meso-level stakeholders preferred fast information but from multiple sources; the micro-level stakeholders preferred one credible source. Throughout Europe, collaboration with the media was perceived as poor and professionals felt misunderstood.

Conclusions

Professional stakeholders should be enabled to access reliable information rapidly through preestablished channels; emphasis should be placed on establishing sustainable cooperations between experts and the media; and measures to improve trust in health authorities, such as the transparent communication of uncertainties, should be encouraged. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:127-133)

Keywords

pandemicrisk managementcommunicationinfluenzahuman
Type
Brief Reports
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 9 , Supplement 2 , April 2015 , pp. 127 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2015 

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. European Commission. Assessment Report on EU-wide Pandemic Vaccine Strategies. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control Web site. http://ecdc.europa.eu/en/activities/sciadvice/_layouts/forms/Review_DispForm.aspx?ID=424&List=a3216f4c-f040-4f51-9f77-a96046dbfd72. Published December 15, 2010. Accessed June 9, 2014.Google Scholar
2. Robert Koch Institut. Repräsentative telefonische Erhebung zur Impfung gegen die pandemische Influenza (H1N1) 2009: Ergebnisse aus Befragungen bis April 2010 [in German]. Epidemiologisches Bulletin. 2010;25:237-238. http://edoc.rki.de/documents/rki_fv/rehRavdyHQSM/PDF/26j1XydeG3e2kU.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2014.Google Scholar
3. Feufel, MA, Antes, G, Gigerenzer, G. Vom sicheren Umgang mit Unsicherheit: Was wir von der pandemischen Influenza (H1N1) 2009 lernen können [in German]. Bundesgesundheitsblatt. 2010;53:1283-1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Cohen, D, Carter, P. Conflicts of Interest: WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies”. BMJ. 2010;340:c2912.Google Scholar
5. Abraham, T. Lessons learnt from the pandemic: the need for new tools for risk and outbreak communication. Emerg Health Threats J. 2011;4:7160. doi: 10.3402/ehtj.v4i0.7160.Google Scholar
6. Helfferich, C. Die Qualität qualitativer Daten: Manual für die Durchführung qualitativer Interviews, 4th ed. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften; 2011.Google Scholar
7. Mayring, P. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Verlag; 2003.Google Scholar
8. Mereckiene, J, Cotter, S, Weber, JT, et al. Influenza A(H1N1)PDM09 vaccination policies and coverage in Europe. Eurosurveillance. 2012;17(4):1-10.Google Scholar
9. Covello, VT, McCallum, DB, Pavlova, MT. Principles and guidelines for improving risk communication. In Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT, eds. Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. Plenum Press; 1989:3-16.Google Scholar
10. Sandman, P, Covello, V. Risk communication: Evolution and Revolution. The Peter Sandman Risk Communication Web site. http://www.psandman.com/articles/covello.htm. Published August 2004. Accessed June 9, 2014.Google Scholar
11. Nhan, C, Laprise, R, Douville-Fradet, M, et al. Coordination and resource-related difficulties encountered by Quebec’s public health specialists and infectious diseases/medical microbiologists in the management of A (H1N1)-a mixed-method, exploratory survey. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:115. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-115.Google Scholar
12. Covello, VT, Peters, R, Wojtecki, J, Hyde, R. Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the commnication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health. 2001;78(2):382-391.Google Scholar
13. Slovic, P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 1999;19(4):689-701.Google Scholar
14. Peters, R, Covello, V, McCallum, D. The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: an empirical study. Risk Anal. 1997;17(1):43-54.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Cloes supplementary material

Cloes supplementary material 1

Download Cloes supplementary material(File)
File 84.5 KB