ABSTRACTS
Volume 8, Supplement
June 2003
Vol. 8, Supplement: Contents | Editorial
| Abstracts
Background on the Special Issue
MAY G. KENNEDY A1
A1 Special Issue Guest Editor, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, Office of Communication, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Best Practices in Public Health
Risk and Crisis Communication
VINCENT T. COVELLO A1
A1 Director, Center for Risk Communication, New York, New
York, USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Electronic Journal Publishing
in the Age of Bioterrorism: How Fast is Fast?
POLYXENI POTTER A1
A1 Managing Editor, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Communication Lessons Learned
in the Emergency Operations Center During CDC's Anthrax Response: A Commentary
MARSHA L. VANDERFORD A1
A1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Environment Health, Office of Communication, Atlanta, Georgia,
USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Communicating in Times of Uncertainty:
The Need for Trust
DAVID A. SHORE A1
A1 Associate Dean and Director, The Public's Health: A Matter
of Trust Initiative, Harvard University, School of Public Health, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA
This article does not have an abstract.
The Anthrax Attacks in New York
City: The "Giuliani Press Conference Model" and Other Communication
Strategies That Helped
SANDRA MULLIN A1
A1 Associate Commissioner, Director of Communications, NYC
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York, New York, USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Uncertain Science and Certain
Deadlines: CDC Responses to the Media During the Anthrax Attacks of 2001
SUSAN J. ROBINSON A1, WENDY C. NEWSTETTER
A1
A1 Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
This paper presents a study in which communication personnel for the
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provided first-hand
accounts of the experience of responding to media inquiries during the
2001 anthrax attacks. In-depth interviews were conducted with 19 communication
professionals who worked either at the CDC headquarters in Atlanta or
at field locations in the U.S. where persons were exposed to anthrax.
The interviews sought CDC staff viewpoints on how the CDC handled a
historically unprecedented level of press activity in terms of work
locations and equipment, information flow and clearance, and staff roles.
Staff reported that the situation led to new work practices, tools for
performing the work, and an enhanced understanding of what it takes
to be prepared for and to handle communication work during a terrorism-related
health crisis. The paper provides a discussion of implications of the
findings for CDC and for other public health organizations developing
systems for communication response during health-related crises.
Communication Monitoring: Shaping
CDC's Emergency Risk Communication Efforts
CHRISTINE E. PRUE A1 , CHERYL LACKEY
A1 , LISA SWENARSKI A1 , JUDY M. GANTT A1
A1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta,
Georgia, USA
CDC develops and delivers health messages for a variety of audiences,
including the public, health care professionals, public health researchers
and practitioners, and policy makers. News media outlets--because of
their broad reach and potential to influence knowledge, attitudes, and
behaviors--are major channels for disseminating messages to these audiences.
CDC has routinely monitored news outlets to identify message/information
gaps and opportunities. The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the anthrax incidents
that followed required CDC to transform its media monitoring system
into a broader communication monitoring system, with both listening
and telling functions, to support CDC's public health emergency response.
Communicating Anthrax in 2001:
A Comparison of CDC Information and Print Media Accounts
FELICIA MEBANE A1, SARAH TEMIN A1,
CLAUDIA F. PARVANTA A2
A1 Department of Health Policy and Administration, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Public Health, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina, USA
A2 Division of Health Communication, Office of Communication,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Information about anthrax released by news media from October 4 to
December 3, 2001, was identified, sampled, coded, and compared with
information released by CDC during that period using statistical analysis.
In addition, communications about two anthrax-related issues were examined
in depth. The quantitative analysis showed that, overall, CDC information
releases and news coverage tracked fairly closely. When weight was defined
as number of mentions, both sources gave the same weight to reports
of risk for the population. The news sample gave roughly half the weight
as CDC to who was exposed, how people were exposed, and what role antibiotics
play in preventing anthrax. The samples were widely divergent (CDC high,
news sample low) for public health precautions and other details. The
in-depth, qualitative analysis showed that some reporters misinterpreted
information provided by CDC, but they responded to requests to clarify
the issue. The findings of this study suggest ways to improve future
crisis communication efforts and demonstrate how differing methods of
analysis can yield substantially different conclusions.
Using Opinion Surveys to Track
the Public's Response to a Bioterrorist Attack
ROBERT J. BLENDON A1, JOHN M. BENSON A1, CATHERINE
M. DESROCHES A1, KATHLEEN J. WELDON A1
A1 Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public
Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
To communicate effectively with the public during an emergency, health
officials need to find out in real time what Americans know and believe,
whom they trust, and what actions they are taking in response to the
crisis. Short-duration surveys can provide vital information to guide
public officials in their response to events and their communication
efforts. Prior research has shown that such surveys, when statistically
re-weighted, can offer timely results without unacceptable risk of bias.
Using examples from public opinion surveys during the anthrax attacks
of 2001, this article examines the role such surveys can play during
a public health crisis.
Public Perceptions of Information
Sources Concerning Bioterrorism Before and After Anthrax Attacks: An Analysis
of National Survey Data
WILLIAM E. POLLARD A1
A1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
This study examined data from six national surveys before and after
the bioterrorist anthrax attacks in the fall of 2001. Public perceptions
of information sources regarding bioterrorism were examined. The findings
highlighted the importance of local television and radio and of cable
and network news channels as information sources. The findings also
showed the importance of national and local health officials as spokespersons
in the event of bioterrorist incidents. Periodic surveys of public attitudes
provide important, timely information for understanding audiences in
communication planning.
Leave No One Behind: Improving Health and Risk
Communication Through Attention to Literacy
RIMA E. RUDD A1, JOHN P. COMINGS A2, JAMES N.
HYDE A3
A1 Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
A2 Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
A3 Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Twice in recent times, the federal government mailed critical health-related
information to every household in the United States. The mailings, the
1988 brochure Understanding AIDS and the 2001 postcard A Message to
Americans, were designed to provide the general public with important
information about needed action. This paper compares the development
process undertaken for each mailing. The authors assess content and
format in light of communication principles and the functional literacy
skills of average adults. The authors, noting that the reading grade
level of the postcard exceeds the reading ability of the average adult,
recommend that plain language guidelines be combined with health and
risk communication principles in all future efforts to alert the public.
Health Literacy: Essential for Health Communication
RUTH M. PARKER A1, JULIE A. GAZMARARIAN A2
A1 Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
A2 Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia,
USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Elaborating a Definition of Health Literacy:
A Commentary
CHRISTINA ZARCADOOLAS A1, ANDREW PLEASANT A2,
DAVID S. GREER A3
A1 Center for Environmental Studies, Brown University, USA
A2 Department of Communications, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York,
USA
A3 Dean of Medicine Emeritus, Brown University School of Medicine, USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Questions About Hypotheticals and Details in
Reporting on Anthrax
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON A1, KELLI LAMMIE A1, CLARE
WARDLE A1, SUSAN KRUTT A1
A1 University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Mass Media, Public Health, and Achieving Health
Literacy
J. GREGORY PAYNE A1, SKYE K. SCHULTE A2
A1 Director, Center for Ethics in Political and Health Communication,
Emerson College, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
A2 Director of Lead Action, Tufts University, Boston, Massachusetts,
USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Surviving a Public Health Crisis: Tips for Communicators
KAY GOLAN A1
A1 Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Media Relations,
1998-2002
This article does not have an abstract.
How the CDC is Meeting the Training Demands
of Emergency Risk Communication
JUDITH COURTNEY A1, GALEN COLE A1, BARBARA REYNOLDS
A1
A1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of Communication,
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Optimistic Bias and Perceptions of Bioterrorism
in Michigan Corporate Spokespersons, Fall 2001
CHARLES T. SALMON A1, HYUN SOON PARK A1, BRENDA
J. WRIGLEY A1
A1 College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, USA
The notion that individuals believe that they are more likely than others
to experience positive events and avoid negative ones is a well-documented
phenomenon in the combined literatures of social psychology and health
communication. The current study focuses on Michigan corporate spokespersons'
perceptions of their company's risk and potential for optimistic bias.
Beginning on September 10, 2001, and continuing through October 2001,
telephone surveys were conducted by a professional survey research firm
to assess spokespersons' awareness of and preparedness for a bioterrorism
attack at their corporation, as well as to ascertain perceived self-risk
relative to that of other, similar corporations. The results offer evidence
of a robust optimistic bias, and provide an unusually timely snapshot
of levels of corporate awareness of bioterrorism during a critical period
of time in which the U.S. experienced its first anthrax attack.
Communication During Public Health Emergencies
JEFFREY P. KOPLAN A1
A1 Emory University, USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Bioterrorism Risk Communication Policy
PETER M. SANDMAN A1
A1 Risk Communication Consultant, Princeton, New Jersey, USA
This article does not have an abstract.
Epilogue to the Special Issue on Anthrax
VICKI FREIMUTH A1
A1 Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office of
Communication, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
This article does not have an abstract.
|
