IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/lvl/lacicr/1416.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Health Care Workers' Risk Perceptions of Personal and Work Activities and Willingness to Report for Work During an Influenza Pandemic

Author

Listed:
  • Georges Dionne
  • Denise Desjardins
  • Martin Lebeau
  • Stéphane Messier
  • André Dascal

Abstract

The ability and willingness of health care workers to report for work during a pandemic are essential to pandemic response. The main contribution of this article is to examine the relationship between risk perception of personal and work activities and willingness to report for work during an influenza pandemic. Data were collected through a quantitative Web-based survey sent to health care workers on the island of Montreal. Respondents were asked about their perception of various risks to obtain index measures of risk perception. A multinomial logit model was applied for the probability estimations, and a factor analysis was conducted to compute risk perception indexes (scores). Risk perception associated with personal and work activities is a significant predictor of intended presence at work during an influenza pandemic. The average predicted probability of being at work during the worst scenario of an influenza pandemic is 46% for all workers in the sample, 36% for those overestimating risk in personal and work activities (95% CI: 35%-37%), 53% for those underestimating risk in work activities (95% CI: 52%-54%), and 49% for those underestimating risk of personal activities (95% CI: 48%-50%). When given an opportunity to change their intentions, 45% of those who initially did not intend to report for work in the worst scenario would do so if the pandemic resulted in a severe manpower shortage. These results have not been previously reported in the literature. Many organizational variables are also significant.

Suggested Citation

  • Georges Dionne & Denise Desjardins & Martin Lebeau & Stéphane Messier & André Dascal, 2014. "Health Care Workers' Risk Perceptions of Personal and Work Activities and Willingness to Report for Work During an Influenza Pandemic," Cahiers de recherche 1416, CIRPEE.
    • Handle: RePEc:lvl:lacicr:1416
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cirpee.org/fileadmin/documents/Cahiers_2014/CIRPEE14-16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Trudy Cameron, 2005. "Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-97, January.
    2. Ran D Balicer & Christina L Catlett & Daniel J Barnett & Carol B Thompson & Edbert B Hsu & Melinda J Morton & Natalie L Semon & Christopher M Watson & Howard S Gwon & Jonathan M Links, 2011. "Characterizing Hospital Workers' Willingness to Respond to a Radiological Event," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-7, October.
    3. Georges Dionne & Claude Fluet & Denise Desjardins, 2007. "Predicted risk perception and risk-taking behavior: The case of impaired driving," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 237-264, December.
    4. Smith, V Kerry & Desvousges, William H, 1987. "An Empirical Analysis of the Economic Value of Risk Changes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(1), pages 89-114, February.
    5. Smith, V Kerry & Johnson, F Reed, 1988. "How Do Risk Perceptions Respond to Information? The Case of Radon," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(1), pages 1-8, February.
    6. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    7. Baruch Fischhoff, 1995. "Risk Perception and Communication Unplugged: Twenty Years of Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 137-145, April.
    8. W. Kip Viscusi & Joni Hersch, 2001. "Cigarette Smokers As Job Risk Takers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 83(2), pages 269-280, May.
    9. W. Kip Viscusi & William N. Evans, 1998. "Estimation Of Revealed Probabilities And Utility Functions For Product Safety Decisions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 28-33, February.
    10. Baron, S. & McPhaul, K. & Phillips, S. & Gershon, R. & Lipscomb, J., 2009. "Protecting home health care workers: A challenge to pandemic influenza preparedness planning," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(S2), pages 301-307.
    11. 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 , 2009. "Assessment of Local Public Health Workers' Willingness to Respond to Pandemic Influenza through Application of the Extended Parallel Process Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(7), pages 1-8, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seonghoon Hong & Alan Collins, 2006. "Societal Responses to Familiar Versus Unfamiliar Risk: Comparisons of Influenza and SARS in Korea," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1247-1257, October.
    2. Christoph M. Rheinberger & James K. Hammitt, 2018. "Dinner with Bayes: On the revision of risk beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 253-280, December.
    3. Ziebarth Nicolas R., 2018. "Biased Lung Cancer Risk Perceptions: Smokers are Misinformed," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 238(5), pages 395-421, September.
    4. Poe, Gregory L. & Bishop, Richard C., 1992. "Measuring the Benefits of Groundwater Protection from Agricultural Contamination: Results from a Two-Stage Contingent Valuation Study," Staff Papers 200549, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    5. Adeline Delavande, 2008. "Measuring revisions to subjective expectations," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 43-82, February.
    6. Gregory Poe & Richard Bishop, 1999. "Valuing the Incremental Benefits of Groundwater Protection when Exposure Levels are Known," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(3), pages 341-367, April.
    7. Cameron, Trudy Ann, 2005. "Individual option prices for climate change mitigation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 283-301, February.
    8. Dickie, Mark & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Gerking, Shelby & Veronesi, Marcella, 2022. "Risk Perception, Learning, and Willingness to Pay to Reduce Heart Disease Risk," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 363-382, October.
    9. Cropper, Maureen L. & Haile, Mitiku & Lampietti, Julian & Poulos, Christine & Whittington, Dale, 2004. "The demand for a malaria vaccine: evidence from Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 303-318, October.
    10. Andrea Damm & Katharina Eberhard & Jan Sendzimir & Anthony Patt, 2013. "Perception of landslides risk and responsibility: a case study in eastern Styria, Austria," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 69(1), pages 165-183, October.
    11. Eom, Young Sook, 1993. "Pesticide Residue Risks, Produce Choice, and Valuation of Food Safety: A Random Utility Approach," Working Papers 116113, Regional Research Project NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance.
    12. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher, 2006. "The Role of the Affect and Availability Heuristics in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(3), pages 631-639, June.
    13. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    14. Emanuele Ciani & Adeline Delavande & Ben Etheridge & Marco Francesconi, 2023. "Policy Uncertainty and Information Flows: Evidence from Pension Reform Expectations," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 133(649), pages 98-129.
    15. Konstantinos Drakos & Catherine Mueller, 2014. "On the Determinants of Terrorism Risk Concern in Europe," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(3), pages 291-310, June.
    16. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2005. "Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 199-209, February.
    17. Monica Galizzi & Tommaso Tempesti, 2015. "Workers’ Risk Tolerance and Occupational Injuries," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1858-1875, October.
    18. Laura N. Rickard, 2021. "Pragmatic and (or) Constitutive? On the Foundations of Contemporary Risk Communication Research," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 466-479, March.
    19. Kip Viscusi, W. & Aldy, Joseph E., 2007. "Labor market estimates of the senior discount for the value of statistical life," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(3), pages 377-392, May.
    20. Aven, Terje, 2018. "Perspectives on the nexus between good risk communication and high scientific risk analysis quality," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 290-296.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Influenza pandemic; pandemic preparedness; risk perception; reporting for work; health policy; personal and work activities;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D80 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - General
    • D81 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Criteria for Decision-Making under Risk and Uncertainty
    • D83 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Search; Learning; Information and Knowledge; Communication; Belief; Unawareness
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lvl:lacicr:1416. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Manuel Paradis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cirpeca.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.