Ideology, partisanship, and support for government actions in 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic

While most people expect public opinion to be highly politicized and polarized on certain health-related policies such as national healthcare reform, sex education and abortion, more benign health issues such as influenza vaccination, even during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, typically do not spark partisan debate. However, there is evidence that party affiliation (Republican or Democrat) and ideology (conservative, moderate or liberal) may impact response to public health messages.

We surveyed a random, representative national sample of more than 2,000 American adults in the midst of the 2009-2010 H1N1 (“swine flu”) pandemic. Using statistical analysis including logistic regression, we examined the relationship between political identification and trust in the government's ability to handle the outbreak and trust in swine flu information from specific public health and government officials including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the President.

Individuals' political ideology and party affiliation had a statistically significant impact on their levels of trust regarding the government and swine flu. Republicans and conservatives were less likely to trust the government, even when controlling for other demographic variables such as race and age.

The findings suggest a need for public health officials to consider the ideological lens of their audiences when designing risk communication messages and policy recommendations even on seemingly apolitical issues.