↓ Skip to main content

PLOS

Assessment of Local Public Health Workers' Willingness to Respond to Pandemic Influenza through Application of the Extended Parallel Process Model

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
109 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of Local Public Health Workers' Willingness to Respond to Pandemic Influenza through Application of the Extended Parallel Process Model
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2009
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0006365
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniel J. Barnett, Ran D. Balicer, Carol B. Thompson, J. Douglas Storey, Saad B. Omer, Natalie L. Semon, Steve Bayer, Lorraine V. Cheek, Kerry W. Gateley, Kathryn M. Lanza, Jane A. Norbin, Catherine C. Slemp, Jonathan M. Links

Abstract

Local public health agencies play a central role in response to an influenza pandemic, and understanding the willingness of their employees to report to work is therefore a critically relevant concern for pandemic influenza planning efforts. Witte's Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) has been found useful for understanding adaptive behavior in the face of unknown risk, and thus offers a framework for examining scenario-specific willingness to respond among local public health workers. We thus aim to use the EPPM as a lens for examining the influences of perceived threat and efficacy on local public health workers' response willingness to pandemic influenza.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 130 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 19%
Student > Master 20 15%
Researcher 12 9%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 6%
Other 27 21%
Unknown 29 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 18%
Social Sciences 23 18%
Psychology 12 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 34 26%