OBJECTIVE: To examine the level of stated compliance with public health pandemic influenza control measures and explore factors influencing cooperation for pandemic influenza control in Australia. METHODS: A computer-assisted telephone interview survey was conducted by professional interviewers to collect information on the Australian public's knowledge of pandemic influenza and willingness to comply with public health control measures. The sample was randomly selected using an electronic database and printed telephone directories to ensure sample representativeness from all Australian states and territories. After we described pandemic influenza to the respondents to ensure they understood the significance of the issue, the questions on compliance were repeated and changes in responses were analysed with McNemar's test for paired data FINDINGS: Only 23% of the 1166 respondents demonstrated a clear understanding of the term 'pandemic influenza'. Of those interviewed, 94.1% reported being willing to comply with home quarantine; 94.2%, to avoid public events; and 90.7%, to postpone social gatherings. After we explained the meaning of 'pandemic' to interviewees, stated compliance increased significantly (to 97.5%, 98.3% and 97.2% respectively). Those who reported being unfamiliar with the term 'pandemic influenza,' male respondents and employed people not able to work from home were less willing to comply. CONCLUSION: In Australia, should the threat arise, compliance with containment measures against pandemic influenza is likely to be high, yet it could be further enhanced through a public education programme conveying just a few key messages. A basic understanding of pandemic influenza is associated with stated willingness to comply with containment measures. Investing now in promoting measures to prepare for a pandemic or other health emergency will have considerable value.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the level of stated compliance with public health pandemic influenza control measures and explore factors influencing cooperation for pandemic influenza control in Australia. METHODS: A computer-assisted telephone interview survey was conducted by professional interviewers to collect information on the Australian public's knowledge of pandemic influenza and willingness to comply with public health control measures. The sample was randomly selected using an electronic database and printed telephone directories to ensure sample representativeness from all Australian states and territories. After we described pandemic influenza to the respondents to ensure they understood the significance of the issue, the questions on compliance were repeated and changes in responses were analysed with McNemar's test for paired data FINDINGS: Only 23% of the 1166 respondents demonstrated a clear understanding of the term 'pandemic influenza'. Of those interviewed, 94.1% reported being willing to comply with home quarantine; 94.2%, to avoid public events; and 90.7%, to postpone social gatherings. After we explained the meaning of 'pandemic' to interviewees, stated compliance increased significantly (to 97.5%, 98.3% and 97.2% respectively). Those who reported being unfamiliar with the term 'pandemic influenza,' male respondents and employed people not able to work from home were less willing to comply. CONCLUSION: In Australia, should the threat arise, compliance with containment measures against pandemic influenza is likely to be high, yet it could be further enhanced through a public education programme conveying just a few key messages. A basic understanding of pandemic influenza is associated with stated willingness to comply with containment measures. Investing now in promoting measures to prepare for a pandemic or other health emergency will have considerable value.
Authors: M Elizabeth Halloran; Neil M Ferguson; Stephen Eubank; Ira M Longini; Derek A T Cummings; Bryan Lewis; Shufu Xu; Christophe Fraser; Anil Vullikanti; Timothy C Germann; Diane Wagener; Richard Beckman; Kai Kadau; Chris Barrett; Catherine A Macken; Donald S Burke; Philip Cooley Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-03-10 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Howard Markel; Harvey B Lipman; J Alexander Navarro; Alexandra Sloan; Joseph R Michalsen; Alexandra Minna Stern; Martin S Cetron Journal: JAMA Date: 2007-08-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ricardo J Wray; Steven M Becker; Neil Henderson; Deborah Glik; Keri Jupka; Sarah Middleton; Carson Henderson; Allison Drury; Elizabeth W Mitchell Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-04-01 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Tom Jefferson; Ruth Foxlee; Chris Del Mar; Liz Dooley; Eliana Ferroni; Bill Hewak; Adi Prabhala; Sree Nair; Alex Rivetti Journal: BMJ Date: 2007-11-27
Authors: Onno de Zwart; Irene K Veldhuijzen; Gillian Elam; Arja R Aro; Thomas Abraham; George D Bishop; Jan Hendrik Richardus; Johannes Brug Journal: Emerg Infect Dis Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 6.883
Authors: Anne M Kavanagh; Kate E Mason; Rebecca J Bentley; David M Studdert; Jodie McVernon; James E Fielding; Sylvia Petrony; Lyle Gurrin; Anthony D LaMontagne Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Ghadah Alkhaldi; Ghadeer S Aljuraiban; Sultana Alhurishi; Roberta De Souza; Kethakie Lamahewa; Rosa Lau; Fahdah Alshaikh Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-06-29 Impact factor: 3.295