172889 Understanding public health workers' willingness-to-respond through application of the Extended Parallel Process Model

Tuesday, October 28, 2008: 9:00 AM

Daniel J. Barnett, MD, MPH , Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Ran Balicer, MD, MPH , Epidemiology Department, Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Head, Health Policy Planning Department, Planning and Health Policy Division, Clalit Health Services, Tel-Aviv, Israel
Saad B. Omer, MBBS, MPH, PhD , Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Natalie Semon, MSEd , Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
J. Douglas Storey, PhD , Communication Science & Research, The Health Communication Partnership, Center for Communication Programs, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
Jonathan Links, PhD , Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD
Carol B. Thompson, MS, MBA , Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
  
Background/Purpose

Risk perception modifiers peripheral to the actual hazard have been found to influence public health workers' response willingness in emergencies; a critical question is why certain risk perception modifiers bear such influence.

Methods

We surveyed response willingness among public health workers (87% response rate; n = 1540) at health departments (n = 22) across health regions in Ohio and Minnesota, using the Johns Hopkins ~ Public Health Infrastructure Response Survey Tool; this online survey incorporates the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM), which describes how audiences process fear content through threat and efficacy appraisals.

Results

Public health employees fitting a high threat/high efficacy (“concerned and confident”) profile for a given hypothetical scenario reported higher likelihood of response willingness, compared to those with low threat/low efficacy appraisals (reference group). This contrast was more pronounced for a weather disaster (Odds Ratio= 8.24; 95% CI: 3.75 – 18.02) and pandemic flu (OR =6.58; 95% CI: 3.45 – 12.5) than inhalational anthrax (OR = 2.94; 95% CI: 1.83 – 4.73). For a “dirty bomb” scenario, a corresponding favorable influence of “high threat/high efficacy” on response willingness was generally observed; however, unlike the other scenarios, this was not consistently significant across all regions.

Conclusions

Data from our EPPM-based analyses indicate that “concerned and confident” public health workers will be the most likely to respond across a range of scenarios. Unique risk perception factors associated with radiation may explain the less consistently observed positive association of response willingness in a dirty bomb scenario compared to other emergencies.

Learning Objectives:
1. Describe the role of threat and efficacy appraisals in the Extended Parallel Process Model and their relationship to public health preparedness. 2. Explain how the Extended Parallel Process Model framework applies to willingness-to-respond among public health workers. 3. Describe scenario-specific response willingness differences among public health workers based on their perceptions of threat and efficacy. 4. Describe unique risk perception factors associated with public health workers' levels of response willingness in a dirty bomb scenario. 5. Discuss how the Extended Parallel Process Model could inform future training interventions to enhance public health workers' emergency response willingness.

Keywords: Practice-Based Research, Risk Communication

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: This is an area of my research expertise.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.

See more of: Emergency and Disaster Preparedness: Examples in Six States
See more of: Injury Control and Emergency Health Services