Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 498

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The impact of community psychological responses on outbreak control for severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong

Open access
Leung, G M, Lam, T-H, Ho, L-M, Ho, S-Y, Chan, B H Y, Wong, I O L, Hedley, A J·2003·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Abstract

Objective: To examine the public’s knowledge and perception of SARS and the extent to which various precautionary measures have been adopted. Design: Cross sectional survey. Setting: General population of Hong Kong at the height of the SARS outbreak (29 March to 6 April 2003). Participants: 1115 ethnic Chinese adults. Main results: Forty per cent did not recognise fomites as a possible mode of transmission whereas 55.1% believed that the infection could be transmitted airborne. A large proportion (30.1%) believed they were very or somewhat likely to contract SARS while only one quarter believed they were very likely to survive if they contracted the disease, benchmarked against an actual case fatality ratio of 2.8% at the time of the survey and 15%–20% according to current best estimates. Precautionary measures directed against person to person droplet spread were generally adopted by most while the prevention of transmission through fomites was not practised as frequently. Respondents with higher risk perceptions and a moderate level of anxiety were most likely to take comprehensive precautionary measures against the infection, as were older, female, more educated people as well as those with a positive contact history and SARS-like symptoms. Conclusions: The findings demonstrate that the promotion of protective personal health practices to interrupt the self sustaining transmission of the SARS virus in the community must take into account background perceptions of risk and anxiety levels of the public at large. Continuing public education about preventive measures should be targeted at the identified groups with low current uptake of precautions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jech.57.11.857

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 498

Metadata

Authors
Leung, G. M., Lam, T.-H., Ho, L.-M., Ho, S.-Y., Chan, B. H. Y., Wong, I. O. L., & Hedley, A. J.
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-11
Volume
57
Issue
11
Pages
857-863
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
OpenAlex
W2047486580
Cited by
498
References
3
FWCI
35.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impact of community psychological responses on outbreak control for severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jech.57.11.857
The paper
Leung, G. M., Lam, T.-H., Ho, L.-M., Ho, S.-Y., Chan, B. H. Y., Wong, I. O. L., & Hedley, A. J. (2003). The impact of community psychological responses on outbreak control for severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.57.11.857

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.