Widespread public misconception in the early phase of the H1N1 influenza epidemic
Introduction
The new H1N1 virus raises world-wide concern about the possibility of an influenza pandemic. As of May 23, 2009, 12,022 confirmed H1N1 cases were detected in 43 countries and 86 deaths had been reported.1 The WHO raised the influenza pandemic alert level to ‘Phase 5’ on April 29, 2009. A preliminary study showed that the fatality and infectivity of the new H1N1 virus is more infectious and fatal, as compared to seasonal influenza.2 In Hong Kong, the first confirmed case, a traveler from Mexico, was reported on May 1, 2009, leading to the closure and isolation of the Metropark Hotel and to the quarantining of 350 guests and staff from May l–May 8, 2009.3 The Hong Kong alert level was raised to the highest ‘Emergency Response Level’. Six more confirmed imported cases were reported in Hong Kong from May 13 to May 24, 2009.
Surveillance of community responses at the beginning of an emerging epidemic is particularly useful to inform the government and the public of the level of preparedness. The SARS epidemic affected 26 countries and claimed 774 lives.4 Hong Kong was one of the worst affected countries; 299 lives were lost5, 6; panic was wide-spread and the economic loss created severe hardship in the community. The lessons learned from the SARS experience in Hong Kong7 and other countries demonstrated the importance of understanding community responses.8, 9
In Hong Kong, SARS-related perceptions and behaviors changed dramatically during the early phase of the outbreak.8, 10, 11, 12 The prevalence of preventive behaviors increased sharply and remained high throughout the epidemic,8, 13 and such measures contributed its control.14 Panic and worry were wide-spread during the epidemic and remained high in the post-SARS period.15, 16 The general public avoided going out, avoided traveling to other countries and avoided social activities to a large extent.8 There were misperceptions about the nature of the epidemic (e.g., mode of transmission).8 However, a substantial proportion of the general public doubted the government's ability to control the SARS epidemic.15 Travelers were less likely to adopt preventive measures when they were out of Hong Kong17 and those visiting mainland China delay seeking medical consultation for flu symptoms and waited until their return to Hong Kong.18 Similar studies were conducted to investigate community preparedness toward human-to-human H5N1 transmissions.19, 20, 21, 22
The objectives of this study was to investigate the community responses and preparedness for a possible epidemic of H1N1 influenza in Hong Kong, amongst the general population between Day 7 and Day 9 following identification of the first confirmed H1N1 case in Hong Kong. The results serve as baseline data of a series of ongoing surveillance studies on the H1N1 epidemic. No similar studies have been reported.
Section snippets
Sampling and data collection
The study population comprised of all Chinese Hong Kong adults who were 18–60 years old. Anonymous telephone interviews were conducted by well-trained interviewers, using a structured questionnaire. Random telephone numbers were selected from an up-to-date telephone directory and over 95% of the households in Hong Kong have a fix-line telephone at home.23 The interviews were conducted from 6:30 to 10 p.m. to avoid over-representing the non-work population. One member was selected by the
Socio-demographic characteristics
The distributions are presented in Table 1. The age and gender compositions are more or less comparable to those of the recent census data (see footnote of Table 1).
Knowledge, misconceptions and unconfirmed beliefs
Of all respondents, 43.1% wrongly believed that the new H1N1 influenza is one type of avian flu. The prevalence of unconfirmed beliefs related to modes of transmission were high: ‘via eating well-cooked pork’ (6.9%), ‘via long-distance airborne aerosols (from one building to another)’ (39.0%), ‘via insect bites’ (25.3%) or ‘via
Discussion
As the H1N1 is a new virus, this study, therefore, filled up some important information gaps. The public in Hong Kong misconceived that H1N1 is airborne, waterborne and could be transmitted via various vectors such as insects. Misconceptions about modes of transmission about avian flu were associated with emotional distress in the general population.19 The public mixed up different types of emerging infectious diseases (such as avian flu and the new H1N1 flu). The confusion might have misled
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank all participants of this study. Thanks are extended to Mr. Nelson Yeung for his help in the early drafts of the manuscript, Mr. Tony Yung and Mr. Johnson Lau for their assistance in the preparation of the questionnaire, Ms. M. W. Chan, Mr. Mason Lau, and Ms. Cheri Tong for coordination of the telephone survey and all colleagues who served as telephone interviewers of this study. The study was supported by the Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences.
References (29)
WHO lowers figures on SARS infections
Lancet
(2003)- et al.
Factors influencing the wearing of facemasks to prevent the severe acute respiratory syndrome among adult Chinese in Hong Kong
Prev Med
(2004) - et al.
Impacts of SARS on health-seeking behaviours in general population in Hong Kong
Prev Med
(2005) - et al.
Positive mental health-related impacts of the SARS epidemic on the general public in Hong Kong and their associations with other negative impacts
J Infect
(2006) - et al.
Perceptions about status and modes of H5N1 transmission and associations with immediate behavioral responses in the Hong Kong general population
Prev Med
(2006) - et al.
Perceptions related to human avian influenza and their associations with anticipated psychological and behavioral responses at the onset of outbreak in the Hong Kong Chinese general population
Am J Infect Control
(2007) Influenza A(H1N1) – update 31
- et al.
Pandemic potential of a strain of Influenza A (H1N1): early findings [monograph on the internet]
Science
(2009 May 14) SFH on human swine flu (updated
Summary of probable SARS cases with onset of illness from 1 November 2002 to 31 July 2003. Based on data as of the 31 December 2003
The cycle fear: a qualitative study of SARS and its impacts on kindergarten parents one year after the outbreak
Hong Kong Pract
Monitoring community responses to the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong: from day 10 to day 62
J Epidemiol Community Health
A tale of two cities: community psychobehavioral surveillance and related impact on outbreak control in Hong Kong and Singapore during the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol
Cited by (114)
Australian community preferences for hotel quarantine options within the Logit Mixed Logit Model framework
2024, Journal of Choice ModellingRemedying Airbnb COVID-19 disruption through tourism clusters and community resilience
2022, Journal of Business ResearchRestaurants and COVID-19: What are consumers’ risk perceptions about restaurant food and its packaging during the pandemic?
2021, International Journal of Hospitality ManagementCitation Excerpt :An example of an inaccurate inference related to food safety happened in a similar prior context – the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Dhand et al. (2011) and Lau et al. (2009) evaluated public perceptions of food safety during the H1N1 pandemic, where virus genetics were associated with pigs, and the virus was commonly called the "swine flu" in the popular press. Despite leading health organizations’ reporting that handling or eating pork was not a source of transmission, some consumers formed judgment biases and heuristically linked the swine flu to pork products (Dhand et al., 2011; Lau et al., 2009).
Exploring teachers’ risk perception, self-efficacy and disease prevention measures during the outbreak of 2019 novel coronavirus disease in Taiwan
2021, Journal of Infection and Public HealthPublic knowledge and adherence to hand hygienic guidelines for the prevention of sars-cov-2 transmission: A cross-sectional survey from pakistan
2022, Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness