| Literature DB >> 20582562 |
J T F Lau1, H Y Tsui, J H Kim, P K S Chan, S Griffiths.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to monitor changes in behavioral and emotional responses to human H5N1 in the community over a 28-month period (from November 2005 to February 2008).Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20582562 PMCID: PMC7100839 DOI: 10.1007/s15010-010-0034-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infection ISSN: 0300-8126 Impact factor: 3.553
Perceptions related to H5N1 with respect to human-to-human H5N1 transmission scenario
| Perceptions | Survey 1 | Survey 2 | Survey 3 | Survey 4 | Survey 5 | Survey 6 |
| Survey 6 versus Survey 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Col%) | (Col%) | (Col%) | (Col%) | (Col%) | (Col%) |
| AOR (95% CI) | |
| Unconfirmed beliefs on H5N1 transmission modesb | ||||||||
| Airborne (long-distance) | 47.9 | 44.0 | 45.8 | 46.6 | 41.1 | 28.0 | <0.001 | 0.41 (0.32, 0.52)*** |
| Insect bites | 48.9 | 43.0 | 42.0 | 46.6 | 48.7 | 46.7 | 0.44 | 0.91 (0.72, 1.14) |
| Water sources (e.g., reservoirs) | 47.3 | 42.0 | 44.6 | 42.4 | 47.8 | 54.7 | <0.001 | 1.36 (1.08, 1.70)** |
| Eating well-cooked poultry meat | 24.9 | 16.6 | 13.9 | 24.2 | 23.6 | 9.3 | <0.001 | 0.31 (0.22, 0.42)*** |
| Perceived susceptibility to H5N1 infection (% likely/very likely)c | ||||||||
| Oneself | 24.1 | 22.0 | 23.1 | 19.6 | 19.3 | 12.4 | <0.001 | 0.43 (0.32, 0.58)*** |
| One’s family | 24.3 | 21.0 | 21.5 | 18.0 | 19.4 | 11.7 | <0.001 | 0.40 (0.30, 0.55)*** |
| The general public | 33.6 | 25.6 | 24.5 | 22.8 | 24.1 | 13.0 | <0.001 | 0.29 (0.22, 0.38)*** |
| Perceptions related to H5N1 outbreak and treatment | ||||||||
| Anticipated a large outbreak if two to three new H5N1 cases were reported in Hong Kong (likely/very likely)c | 33.0 | 21.4 | 28.7 | 34.0 | 15.4 | 15.9 | <0.001 | 0.39 (0.29, 0.51)*** |
| Perceived that local government can control the epidemic if two to three new H5N1 cases were reported in Hong Kong (yes)b | 69.2 | 65.4 | 69.5 | 67.0 | 73.3 | 73.3 | <0.01 | 1.24 (0.97, 1.59) |
| No effective drugs currently available (agree)a | 50.5 | 61.3 | 57.0 | 59.7 | 60.4 | 78.6 | <0.001 | 3.54 (2.76, 4.54)*** |
| No effective vaccine currently available (agree)a | 58.6 | 66.4 | 60.2 | 63.9 | 61.2 | 81.7 | <0.001 | 3.11 (2.40, 4.03)*** |
| Perceived adverse consequences being worse than SARS (%)d | ||||||||
| Fatality rate | 40.2 | 33.0 | 25.1 | 33.0 | 20.2 | 18.0 | <0.001 | 0.31 (0.24, 0.40)*** |
| Infectivity | 40.4 | 33.2 | 29.5 | 35.6 | 25.7 | 19.8 | <0.001 | 0.34 (0.27, 0.44)*** |
| Permanent physical damages to the patients | 20.9 | 18.8 | 17.9 | 18.6 | 11.5 | 11.9 | <0.001 | 0.49 (0.36, 0.67)*** |
| Impacts onto oneself & the family | 25.0 | 19.6 | 17.1 | 15.8 | 15.2 | 12.7 | <0.001 | 0.42 (0.31, 0.56)*** |
| Economic impact on Hong Kong | 36.8 | 29.3 | 24.3 | 27.8 | 22.3 | 15.9 | <0.001 | 0.31 (0.23, 0.40)*** |
| Duration of the epidemic | 40.4 | 37.3 | 31.1 | 39.0 | 32.0 | 26.6 | <0.001 | 0.52 (0.41, 0.66)*** |
| Total number of people infected | 38.6 | 27.6 | 25.7 | 28.7 | 25.5 | 15.4 | <0.001 | 0.27 (0.20, 0.35)*** |
| Number of items with “worse than SARS” responses in the above 7 itemse | ||||||||
| None | 27.8 | 36.6 | 41.8 | 37.0 | 45.4 | 58.2 | <0.001 | 0.27 (0.21, 0.35)*** |
| 1–3 items | 38.6 | 38.6 | 39.0 | 38.0 | 37.9 | 28.6 | ||
| 4–7 items | 33.6 | 24.8 | 19.1 | 25.0 | 16.7 | 13.2 | ||
AOR, Odds ratio adjusted for gender, age group, education level, marital status, and employment status; CI, confidence interval
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; a p value < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant
aResponses options include “agree”, “disagree”, and “not certain”
bResponse options include “yes, “no”, and “not certain”
cResponse options include “very likely”, “likely”, “unlikely”, “very unlikely”, and “not certain”
dResponse options include “worse than severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)”, “similar to SARS”, “better than SARS”, and “not certain”
eThe variable was dichotomized into “None” and “At least 1 item” in the logistic regression analysis
Anticipated preventive behaviors, if two to three new human-to-human H5N1 cases were reported in Hong Kong
| Anticipated preventive behaviors | Survey 1 | Survey 2 | Survey 3 | Survey 4 | Survey 5 | Survey 6 |
| Survey 6 versus Survey 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Col%) | (Col%) | (Col%) | (Col%) | (Col%) | (Col%) |
| AOR (95% CI) | |
| Anticipated preventive behaviors (% likely/very likely)a | ||||||||
| Would always wear face-mask in public places | 73.8 | 60.8 | 65.3 | 70.4 | 52.6 | 43.7 | <0.001 | 0.26 (0.20, 0.33)*** |
| Would increase frequency of hand-washing | 86.7 | 82.0 | 80.7 | 86.8 | 77.2 | 80.8 | 0.01 | 0.62 (0.45, 0.85)** |
| Would declare at checkpoint if got flu | 87.1 | 79.0 | 82.9 | 83.4 | 80.5 | 88.1 | 0.29 | 1.05 (0.75, 1.49) |
| Would reduce visiting other places | 78.9 | 69.6 | 72.3 | 82.2 | 67.2 | 58.5 | <0.001 | 0.36 (0.28, 0.47)*** |
| Would wear face-mask when go out if got fever/cold | 92.4 | 85.3 | 90.0 | 90.0 | 86.6 | 92.0 | 0.80 | 0.89 (0.58, 1.37) |
| Would not eat poultry | 63.8 | 45.0 | 55.8 | 54.2 | 50.3 | 35.2 | <0.001 | 0.30 (0.24, 0.38)*** |
| Would avoid visiting hospitals | 71.0 | 72.0 | 70.3 | 74.0 | 70.1 | 60.7 | <0.001 | 0.62 (0.49, 0.79)*** |
| Would avoid crowds | 79.7 | 74.2 | 75.7 | 80.4 | 70.2 | 66.1 | <0.001 | 0.46 (0.35, 0.61)*** |
| Would avoid going out | 72.6 | 69.6 | 70.7 | 73.2 | 65.9 | 51.5 | <0.001 | 0.39 (0.30, 0.50)*** |
| Would comply to quarantine policy | 88.3 | 88.6 | 83.1 | 92.0 | 90.2 | 96.8 | <0.001 | 3.89 (2.37, 6.36)*** |
| Total number of items with “likely/very likely” responses in the above 10 items | ||||||||
| None–8 items | 48.1 | 62.2 | 59.0 | 51.0 | 62.1 | 72.1 | <0.001 | 0.34 (0.27, 0.44)*** |
| 9–10 items | 51.9 | 37.8 | 41.0 | 49.0 | 37.9 | 27.9 | ||
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; a p value < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant
aResponse options include “very likely”, “likely”, “unlikely”, “very unlikely, and “not certain”
Anticipated psychological responses, if two to three new human-to-human H5N1 cases were reported in Hong Kong
| Anticipated psychological responses | Survey 1 | Survey 2 | Survey 3 | Survey 4 | Survey 5 | Survey 6 |
| Survey 6 vs. Survey 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Col% | Col% | Col% | Col% | Col% | Col% |
| AOR (95% CI) | |
| Anticipated psychological responses (% likely/very likely)a | ||||||||
| Worry a lot about oneself being affected | 41.4 | 36.8 | 38.4 | 31.2 | 28.1 | 20.3 | <0.001 | 0.36 (0.28, 0.46)*** |
| Worry a lot about family being affected | 52.9 | 42.6 | 43.0 | 38.0 | 37.9 | 21.5 | <0.001 | 0.24 (0.19, 0.31)*** |
| Much panic | 19.7 | 18.6 | 20.1 | 10.8 | 12.9 | 7.1 | <0.001 | 0.31 (0.22, 0.44)*** |
| Much upset | 14.9 | 16.4 | 18.7 | 8.2 | 9.4 | 6.5 | <0.001 | 0.39 (0.27, 0.57)*** |
| Very emotionally distressed | 19.7 | 20.6 | 22.5 | 17.8 | 13.4 | 7.6 | <0.001 | 0.32 (0.23, 0.46)*** |
| Perceived large impact on one’s daily life | 47.1 | 43.8 | 40.6 | 36.8 | 27.5 | 21.5 | <0.001 | 0.30 (0.23, 0.38)*** |
| Total number of items showing negative psychological responses in the above 6 items | ||||||||
| 0–3 items | 80.7 | 83.4 | 80.1 | 87.8 | 88.4 | 93.2 | <0.001 | 0.30 (0.21, 0.43)*** |
| 4–6 items | 19.3 | 16.6 | 19.9 | 12.2 | 11.6 | 6.8 | ||
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; a p value < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant
aResponse options include “very likely”, “likely”, “unlikely”, “very unlikely, and “not certain”
Associations between anticipated preventive behaviors, psychological responses, and studied variables listed in Tables 1 and 2
| Associations | Number of anticipated preventive behaviors ≥9 items (out of 10)—if two to three new human-to-human H5N1 cases were to be reported in Hong Konga | Number of anticipated psychological responses ≥4 items (out of 6)—if two to three new human-to-human H5N1 cases were to be reported in Hong Kongb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Row (%) | ORu | ORm (95% CI) | Row (%) | ORu | ORm (95% CI) | |
| Round | ||||||
| Survey 1 | 51.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 19.3 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Survey 2 | 37.8 | 0.56*** | 0.59 (0.45,0.77)*** | 16.6 | 0.83 | 0.95 (0.67, 1.35) |
| Survey 3 | 41.0 | 0.65** | 0.70 (0.54, 0.91)** | 19.9 | 1.04 | 1.16 (0.83, 1.64) |
| Survey 4 | 49.0 | 0.89 | 0.93 (0.71,1.20) | 12.2 | 0.58** | 0.64 (0.44, 0.93)* |
| Survey 5 | 37.9 | 0.57*** | 0.65 (0.51, 0.82)*** | 11.6 | 0.55*** | 0.69 (0.49, 0.97)* |
| Survey 6 | 27.9 | 0.36*** | 0.41 (0.32, 0.54)*** | 6.8 | 0.31*** | 0.44 (0.30, 0.64)*** |
| Gender | ||||||
| Male | 38.4 | 1.00 | – | 11.7 | 1.00 | ns |
| Female | 41.0 | 1.12 | 15.4 | 1.37** | ||
| Age groups (years) | ||||||
| 18–34 | 33.9 | 1.00 | ns | 11.9 | 1.00 | ns |
| 35–60 | 43.1 | 1.48** | 14.7 | 1.28* | ||
| Marital status | ||||||
| Currently married | 44.2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 15.1 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Currently not married | 32.0 | 0.60*** | 0.57 (0.49, 0.66)*** | 11.0 | 0.69** | 0.72 (0.57, 0.90)** |
| Full-time employment | ||||||
| Working full-time | 38.6 | 1.00 | – | 12.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Else | 41.7 | 1.14 | 15.2 | 1.23* | 1.26 (1.01, 1.57)* | |
| Rating on emotional distress during the SARS epidemicc | ||||||
| <8 | 37.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 10.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| ≥8 | 47.0 | 1.45*** | 1.38 (1.16, 1.64)*** | 25.0 | 2.79*** | 2.73 (2.19, 3.41)*** |
| Perceived modes of transmission | ||||||
| Airborne (long-distance) | ||||||
| No/not certain | 37.0 | 1.00 | ns | 10.6 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 43.8 | 1.33*** | 18.0 | 1.85*** | 1.28 (1.03, 1.58)* | |
| Water sources (e.g., reservoirs) | ||||||
| No/not certain | 37.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 11.1 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 42.1 | 1.21** | 1.19 (1.03, 1.38)* | 16.5 | 1.58*** | 1.55 (1.26, 1.92)*** |
| Eating well-cooked poultry meat | ||||||
| No/not certain | 37.3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 12.9 | 1.00 | ns |
| Yes | 50.9 | 1.75*** | 1.50 (1.25, 1.80)*** | 17.1 | 1.39** | |
| Perceived susceptibility to H5N1 infection | ||||||
| Oneself | ||||||
| Unlikely/very unlikely/not certain | 37.9 | 1.00 | ns | 11.0 | 1.00 | ns |
| Likely/very likely | 47.4 | 1.47*** | 24.8 | 2.68*** | ||
| One’s family | ||||||
| Unlikely/very unlikely/not certain | 37.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 10.9 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Likely/very likely | 48.9 | 1.59*** | 1.27 (1.06, 1.52)* | 25.4 | 2.77*** | 1.51(1.08, 2.11)* |
| The general public | ||||||
| Unlikely/very unlikely/not certain | 37.3 | 1.00 | ns | 10.4 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Likely/very likely | 48.2 | 1.57*** | 24.4 | 2.77*** | 1.43 (1.04, 1.97)* | |
| Perceptions related to H5N1 | ||||||
| Anticipated a large local outbreak if two to three new H5N1 cases were to be reported in Hong Kong | ||||||
| Unlikely/very unlikely/not certain | 34.8 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 9.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Likely/very likely | 55.9 | 2.38*** | 1.96 (1.66, 2.32)*** | 26.7 | 3.40*** | 2.62 (2.10, 3.27)*** |
| Perceived that local government can control the epidemic if two to three new H5N1 cases were to be reported in Hong Kong | ||||||
| No/not certain | 39.9 | 1.00 | – | 18.7 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| Yes | 39.7 | 1.00 | 11.5 | 0.56*** | 0.76 (0.61, 0.94)* | |
| No effective drugs currently available | ||||||
| Disagree/not certain | 37.3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 12.6 | 1.00 | – |
| Agree | 41.2 | 1.18* | 1.25 (1.08, 1.45)** | 14.2 | 1.15 | |
| Perceived adverse consequences | ||||||
| No. of items with “worse than SARS” responses in the 7 items listed in Table | ||||||
| None | 32.3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 8.4 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| At least 1 item | 45.3 | 1.73*** | 1.40 (1.21, 1.63)*** | 17.5 | 2.30*** | 1.65 (1.30, 2.09)*** |
ORu, Univariate odds ratio; ORm, odds ratio obtained from stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis using univariately significant variables (with p < 0.05) as candidate variables; ns not significant in the multivariate analysis; –, univariately not significant
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; a p value < 0.05 was taken as statistically significant
aOut of the 10 items listed in Table 3
bOut of the 6 items listed in Table 4
cRespondents were asked to rate on a 1- to 10-point scale their level of emotional distress during the SARS epidemic in 2003