Cited by 105Risk Perception and ManagementInfluenza Virus Research StudiesCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

“Pandemic public health paradox”: time series analysis of the 2009/10 Influenza A/H1N1 epidemiology, media attention, risk perception and public reactions in 5 European countries

Open access
Reintjes, Ralf, Das, Enny, Klemm, Celine, Richardus, Jan Hendrik, Keßler, Verena, Ahmad, Amena·2016·PLOS ONE

Abstract

In 2009, influenza A H1N1 caused the first pandemic of the 21st century. Although a vaccine against this influenza subtype was offered before or at the onset of the second epidemic wave that caused most of the fatal cases in Europe, vaccination rates for that season were lower than expected. We propose that the contradiction between high risk of infection and low use of available prevention measures represents a pandemic public health paradox. This research aims for a better understanding of this paradox by exploring the time-dependent interplay among changing influenza epidemiology, media attention, pandemic control measures, risk perception and public health behavior among five European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Spain and the UK). Findings suggest that asynchronicity between media curves and epidemiological curves may potentially explain the pandemic public health paradox; media attention for influenza A H1N1 in Europe declined long before the epidemic reached its peak, and public risk perceptions and behaviors may have followed media logic, rather than epidemiological logic.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0151258

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is insufficient knowledge about how changing epidemiology, media attention, pandemic control measures, risk perception, and public health behaviour interact.

    “At the same time, not enough is known about the complex interplay of changing epidemiology, media attention, pandemic control measures, risk perception, and public health behaviour.5”

    From Monitoring behavioural insights related to COVID-19 (2020) · cites this paper as [5]

  • People's perceived risk is not necessarily aligned with their actual risk.

    “but paradoxically, how people perceive risk is not necessarily correlated with the actual risk.”

    From Monitoring behavioural insights related to COVID-19 (2020) · cites this paper as [5]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [16]Fischhoff B. Managing risk perceptions. Issues in Science and Technology 1985; 2: 83– 96.
  2. [24]Hilton S, Hunt K. UK newspapersp/cjph/article/view/2493le/view/2493" ournal of Public Health. Revue Canadienne de Santnalth Communication 1988; 8(2):177-874pean Journal of Communication 1997; 12:319
  3. [50]Klemm C, Das E, Hartmann T. (2014). Swine Flu and Hype: A Systematic Review of Media Dramatization of the H1N1 Pandemic. Paper presented at the ICA Conference, Seattle, USA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Reintjes, R., Das, E., Klemm, C., Richardus, J. H., Keßler, V., & Ahmad, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Tampere (FI)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Erasmus MC (NL)
  • HAW Hamburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Reintjes, Ralf
Venue
PLOS ONE
Published
2016-03-16
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
e0151258
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2297886249
Cited by
105
References
28
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
15.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (2007–2013, 278763, FP7 2007-2013, FP7/2007)
  • University of Glasgow
  • Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad
  • Robert Koch Institut
  • Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  • Statens Serum Institut
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Influenza Virus Research Studies
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
2009 H1N1 pandemic, media attention, risk perception, public health behavior, influenza vaccination rates, pandemic control measures, epidemic curve, European countries
MeSH terms
Europe, Humans, Influenza, Human, Influenza Vaccines, Mass Media, Public Opinion, Risk, Influenza A Virus, H1N1 Subtype

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