Literature DB >> 20630122

Exploring the needs, concerns and behaviours of people with existing respiratory conditions in relation to the H1N1 'swine influenza' pandemic: a multicentre survey and qualitative study.

A-L Caress1, P Duxbury, A Woodcock, K A Luker, D Ward, M Campbell, L Austin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: People with respiratory conditions are a 'high-risk' group for H1N1 pandemic swine influenza ('swine flu'), hence they and their families may have information needs, worries and concerns regarding the condition. Health-related behaviours, including vaccination, are recommended during the pandemic; understanding uptake of these is important.
OBJECTIVES: To explore and compare information needs, worries and concerns, and health-related behaviours regarding swine flu in people with respiratory conditions and their family members.
METHODS: Mixed-methods study - cross-sectional survey (253 patients, 101 family members); one-to-one interviews (13 patients, seven family members) and focus groups (n = three groups, 30 participants). Data collected October 2009-January 2010 from hospital chest clinics (n = 7) and patient support groups (n = 10) in North West England.
RESULTS: Most patients (P) and family members (FM) wanted more information (n = 158, 62.5% P; n = 55, 54.4% FM), but few felt completely uninformed (n = 15, 5.9% P; n = 3, 3.0% FM). Most had already received information about swine flu (n = 187, 73.9% P; n = 78, 77.2% FM), mainly via a leaflet delivered to their home (n = 125, 49.4% P; n = 55, 54.5% FM). Information received was considered helpful (n = 154, 60.9% P; n = 77, 72.6% FM), but many wanted more condition-specific information (n = 141, 55.7% P; n = 60, 59.4% FM). More patients were worried (n = 147, 58.3%) than not worried (n = 99, 39.3%) about swine flu. FM were less often concerned about personal risk (n = 47, 46.6% worried) than about risk to patients (n = 76, 77.6%). Two-thirds (n = 161, 63.6% P; 65, 65.6% FM) incorrectly believed patients had increased risk of developing swine flu, but most (n = 204, 81.0% P; 89, 89.9% FM) correctly identified patients' greater risk of developing complications. Commonly adopted preventative measures were more frequent hand-washing (107, 42.8% P; 38, 37.6% FM) and greater use of sanitising hand gel (n = 100, 40.5% P; 37, 36.6% FM). In total, 212 patients (83.8%) and 69 family members (68.3%) were very/fairly likely to take up swine flu vaccination. Qualitative data mirrored survey findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Participants were generally well-informed about swine flu, but more targeted information would have been welcomed. Participants were not highly anxious about swine flu, but did recognise risks for patients. Behaviour change was modest, but in line with recommendations. Vaccination intent was high. STUDY REGISTRATION: The study has been registered as REC/IRAS (Ref 09/H1015/76) and NIHR CSP (Ref 32483).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20630122     DOI: 10.3310/hta14340-01

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Technol Assess        ISSN: 1366-5278            Impact factor:   4.014


  9 in total

1.  Health information during the H1N1 influenza pandemic: did the amount received influence infection prevention behaviors?

Authors:  Bella Etingen; Sherri L LaVela; Scott Miskevics; Barry Goldstein
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2013-06

2.  Evaluation of a Web-based intervention to promote hand hygiene: exploratory randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lucy Yardley; Sascha Miller; Wolff Schlotz; Paul Little
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 5.428

3.  Determinants of refusal of A/H1N1 pandemic vaccination in a high risk population: a qualitative approach.

Authors:  Eugenie d'Alessandro; Dominique Hubert; Odile Launay; Laurence Bassinet; Olivier Lortholary; Yannick Jaffre; Isabelle Sermet-Gaudelus
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-10       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 4.  What have we learned about communication inequalities during the H1N1 pandemic: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Leesa Lin; Elena Savoia; Foluso Agboola; Kasisomayajula Viswanath
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 5.  Public perceptions of non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing transmission of respiratory infection: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies.

Authors:  Emma Teasdale; Miriam Santer; Adam W A Geraghty; Paul Little; Lucy Yardley
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 3.295

6.  Predictors of self and parental vaccination decisions in England during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: Analysis of the Flu Watch pandemic cohort data.

Authors:  Dale Weston; Ruth Blackburn; Henry W W Potts; Andrew C Hayward
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2017-06-09       Impact factor: 3.641

7.  Effect of prosocial public health messages for population behaviour change in relation to respiratory infections: a systematic review protocol.

Authors:  Aikaterini Grimani; Chris Bonell; Susan Michie; Vivi Antonopoulou; Michael P Kelly; Ivo Vlaev
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Needs, concerns and self-management experiences of people with type 2 diabetes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Rebecca Upsher; Yasaman Noori; Lisa Kuriakose; Io Vassiliadou; Kirsty Winkley; Khalida Ismail
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2022-05-24       Impact factor: 4.213

Review 9.  The swine flu vaccine, public attitudes, and researcher interpretations: a systematic review of qualitative research.

Authors:  Benedicte Carlsen; Claire Glenton
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 2.655

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.