The role of risk communication in public health interventions. An analysis of risk communication for a community quarantine in Germany to curb the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
08
02
2021
accepted:
01
08
2021
entrez:
13
8
2021
pubmed:
14
8
2021
medline:
27
8
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Separating ill or possibly infectious people from their healthy community is one of the core principles of non-pharmaceutical interventions. However, there is scarce evidence on how to successfully implement quarantine orders. We investigated a community quarantine for an entire village in Germany (Neustadt am Rennsteig, March 2020) with the aim of better understanding the successful implementation of quarantine measures. This cross-sectional survey was conducted in Neustadt am Rennsteig six weeks after the end of a 14-day mandatory community quarantine. The sample size consisted of 562 adults (64% of the community), and the response rate was 295 adults, or 52% (33% of the community). National television was reported as the most important channel of information. Contact with local authorities was very limited, and partners or spouses played a more important role in sharing information. Generally, the self-reported information level was judged to be good (211/289 [73.0%]). The majority of participants (212/289 [73.4%]) approved of the quarantine, and the reported compliance was 217/289 (75.1%). A self-reported higher level of concern as well as a higher level of information correlated positively with both a greater acceptance of quarantine and self-reported compliant behaviour. The community quarantine presented a rare opportunity to investigate a public health intervention for an entire community. In order to improve the implementation of public health interventions, public health risk communication activities should be intensified to increase both the information level (potentially leading to better compliance with community quarantine) and the communication level (to facilitate rapport and trust between public health authorities and their communities).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Separating ill or possibly infectious people from their healthy community is one of the core principles of non-pharmaceutical interventions. However, there is scarce evidence on how to successfully implement quarantine orders. We investigated a community quarantine for an entire village in Germany (Neustadt am Rennsteig, March 2020) with the aim of better understanding the successful implementation of quarantine measures.
METHODS
This cross-sectional survey was conducted in Neustadt am Rennsteig six weeks after the end of a 14-day mandatory community quarantine. The sample size consisted of 562 adults (64% of the community), and the response rate was 295 adults, or 52% (33% of the community).
FINDINGS
National television was reported as the most important channel of information. Contact with local authorities was very limited, and partners or spouses played a more important role in sharing information. Generally, the self-reported information level was judged to be good (211/289 [73.0%]). The majority of participants (212/289 [73.4%]) approved of the quarantine, and the reported compliance was 217/289 (75.1%). A self-reported higher level of concern as well as a higher level of information correlated positively with both a greater acceptance of quarantine and self-reported compliant behaviour.
INTERPRETATION
The community quarantine presented a rare opportunity to investigate a public health intervention for an entire community. In order to improve the implementation of public health interventions, public health risk communication activities should be intensified to increase both the information level (potentially leading to better compliance with community quarantine) and the communication level (to facilitate rapport and trust between public health authorities and their communities).
Identifiants
pubmed: 34388211
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256113
pii: PONE-D-21-02054
pmc: PMC8362954
doi:
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0256113Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Pan Afr Med J. 2019 May 28;33(Suppl 2):4
pubmed: 31402964
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 May;4(5):460-471
pubmed: 32355299
J Infect. 2004 Nov;49(4):257-61
pubmed: 15474622
Chaos. 2018 Jan;28(1):013119
pubmed: 29390620
Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Dec 22;270(1533):2565-71
pubmed: 14728778
Lancet. 2020 Nov 21;396(10263):1614-1616
pubmed: 33159850
Public Health. 2020 May;182:163-169
pubmed: 32334182
Lancet. 2020 Apr 18;395(10232):1255-1256
pubmed: 32247323
Nat Commun. 2020 Nov 17;11(1):5829
pubmed: 33203887
BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Mar 11;9:27
pubmed: 19284571
Euro Surveill. 2016;21(14):
pubmed: 27103616
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 May 27;19(1):100
pubmed: 31133075
Int J Ment Health Addict. 2021;19(5):1875-1888
pubmed: 32346359
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017 May 26;372(1721):
pubmed: 28396475
Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:33-54
pubmed: 17222081
Biosecur Bioterror. 2004;2(4):265-72
pubmed: 15650436
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021 Mar;27(3):470.e1-470.e9
pubmed: 33221432
BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jul 26;5:377
pubmed: 22830499
Lancet. 2020 Mar 14;395(10227):912-920
pubmed: 32112714
Psychiatry Res. 2020 Nov;293:113462
pubmed: 32987222
BMC Public Health. 2019 Dec 11;19(1):1665
pubmed: 31829223
BMJ. 2009 Jul 02;339:b2651
pubmed: 19574308
Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2011 Jan;5(1):39-46
pubmed: 21138539
J Travel Med. 2020 Mar 13;27(2):
pubmed: 32052841