Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-8gtf8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-17T13:14:59.034Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of Lived Experiences on Public Responses to Future Diseases via (De)Sensitization of Concern

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2022

Alexander J. Pritchard Open the ORCID record for Alexander J. Pritchard [Opens in a new window] ,
Matthew J. Silk  and
Nina H. Fefferman
Alexander J. Pritchard*
Affiliation:
NIMBioS, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Matthew J. Silk
Affiliation:
NIMBioS, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Nina H. Fefferman
Affiliation:
NIMBioS, National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville Department of Mathematics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
*
Corresponding author: Alexander J. Pritchard, Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

Public responses to a future novel disease might be influenced by a subset of individuals who are either sensitized or desensitized to concern-generating processes through their lived experiences during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Such influences may be critical for shaping public health messaging during the next emerging threat.

Methods:

This study explored the potential outcomes of the influence of lived experiences by using a dynamic multiplex network model to simulate a COVID-19 outbreak in a population of 2000 individuals, connected by means of disease and communication layers. Then a new disease was introduced, and a subset of individuals (50% or 100% of hospitalized during the COVID-19 outbreak) was assumed to be either sensitized or desensitized to concern-generating processes relative to the general population, which alters their adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (social distancing).

Results:

Altered perceptions and behaviors from lived experiences with COVID-19 did not necessarily result in a strong mitigating effect for the novel outbreak. When public disease response is already strong or sensitization is assumed to be a robust effect, then a sensitized subset may enhance public mitigation of an outbreak through social distancing.

Conclusions:

In preparing for future outbreaks, assuming an experienced and disease-aware public may compromise effective design of effective public health messaging and mitigative action.

Keywords

epidemicshealth communicationinfectious disease transmissionpublic healthstress psychological
Type
Brief Report
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 17 , 2023 , e251
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Weston, D, Hauck, K, Amlôt, R. Infection prevention behaviour and infectious disease modelling: a review of the literature and recommendations for the future. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):336. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-5223-1 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Einvik, G, Dammen, T, Ghanima, W, et al. Prevalence and risk factors for post-traumatic stress in hospitalized and non-hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(4):2079. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18042079 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Silk, MJ, Carrignon, S, Bentley, RA, et al. Observations and conversations: how communities learn about infection risk can impact the success of non-pharmaceutical interventions against epidemics. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):13. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12353-9 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fiebelkorn, AP, Redd, SB, Gastañaduy, PA, et al. A comparison of post-elimination measles epidemiology in the United States, 2009−2014 versus 2001−2008. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2017;6(1):40-48. doi: 10.1093/jpids/piv080 Google Scholar
Bourmistrova, NW, Solomon, T, Braude, P, et al. Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. 2022;299:118-125. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.11.031 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, L, McCloud, RF, Bigman, CA, et al. Tuning in and catching on? Examining the relationship between pandemic communication and awareness and knowledge of MERS in the USA. J Public Health (Oxf). 2017;39(2):282-289. doi: 10.1093/pubmed/fdw028 Google ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Transmission of measles. Published November 5, 2020. Accessed November 1, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/measles/transmission.html Google Scholar
Gastanaduy, PA, Redd, SB, Clemmons, NS, et al. Chapter 7: Measles. In: Roush SW, McIntyre L, Baldy LM, eds. Manual for the Surveillance of Vaccine-Preventable Diseases. Vol Page last reviewed: May 13, 2019. Center for Disease Control and Prevention: National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases; 2008.Google Scholar
Wong, RD, Goetz, MB. Clinical and laboratory features of measles in hospitalized adults. Am J Med. 1993;95(4):377-383. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(93)90306-a CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Celiloğlu, C, Tolunay, O, Çelik, Ü. Evaluation of pediatric measles cases hospitalized in 2019. Turk Arch Pediatr. 2021;56(4):328-331. doi: 10.5152/TurkArchPediatr.2021.20216 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Pritchard et al. supplementary material

Pritchard et al. supplementary material

Download Pritchard et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.3 MB