Public Response to an Anthrax Attack: A Multiethnic Perspective

Abstract

The 2001 anthrax attacks emphasized the need to develop outreach that would more effectively support racial/ethnic minority populations during a bioterrorism incident. Given the importance of antibiotic prophylaxis in a future anthrax attack, it should be a priority to better support racial/ ethnic minorities in mass dispensing programs. To examine the needs and perspectives of racial/ ethnic minorities, this study used a nationally representative poll of 1,852 adults, including 1,240 whites, 261 African Americans, and 282 Hispanics. The poll examined public reactions to a "worst-case scenario" in which cases of inhalation anthrax are discovered without an identified source and the entire population of a city or town is asked to receive antibiotic prophylaxis within 48 hours. Findings suggest willingness across all racial/ethnic groups to comply with recommendations to seek prophylaxis at dispensing sites. However, findings also indicate possible barriers for racial/ethnic minorities, including greater concern about pill safety and multiple HHS Public Access Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript attacks as well as lesser knowledge about inhalation anthrax. Across all racial/ethnic groups, roughly half would prefer to receive antibiotics at mass dispensing sites rather than through the US Postal Service. People in racial/ethnic minority groups were more likely to say this preference stems from a desire to speak with staff or to exchange medication formulation or type. Findings suggest the need for tailored outreach to racial/ethnic minorities through, for example, emphasis on key messages and enhanced understandability in communications, increased staff for answering questions in relevant dispensing sites, and long-term trust building with racial/ethnic minority communities.During the 2001 anthrax attacks, public health officials were challenged with providing antibiotic prophylaxis to a racially and ethnically diverse group of people who had likely been exposed to Bacillus anthracis. [1][2][3] This experience emphasized the need to develop outreach and communications that would more effectively support racial/ethnic minority populations during a possible future bioterrorism incident. It should therefore be a priority to address the needs of racial/ethnic minority groups with respect to programs for mass dispensing of antibiotic prophylaxis, which form a central piece of the nation's capabilities for reducing mass casualties in the case of future anthrax attacks. [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] In order to improve mass dispensing programs for racial/ethnic minority groups, it is important to understand how people in racial/ethnic minorities might respond to such programs and whether that differs from majority white populations. 9 It may be particularly important to understand whether there are differences in attitudes about the dispensing programs or knowledge about disease etiology that might dissuade members of racial/ethnic minority groups from obtaining and taking antib...

Different mechanisms of two anti-anthrax protective antigen antibodies and function comparison between them

“…In the past decade, some terrorists used the anthrax agents and/or their associated toxins as bioweapons. In addition, some people have been exposed to anthrax spores during bioterrorism events [3, 4]. These make it necessary to study anthrax pathogenesis, treatment, etc.…”

Accountability between Experts and the Public in Times of Risk

“…In telephone surveys asking respondents what prophylactic treatment they would seek in the event of a mass anthrax contamination, less willingness to comply with safety recommendations was evident among participants from minority groups which had lower initial levels of trust in government. In other studies, African‐American respondents reported lower levels of confidence in anthrax vaccination programs, a finding described as related to the legacy of the Tuskegee experiments in which black subjects were intentionally exposed to syphilis without consent (SteelFisher et al : 402‐403). In this instance, cultural context contributes to the pre‐existing schema through which government policies and actions are analyzed by different segments of the public (Axelrod : 1248‐1266).…”

“…Some of the most comparable examples include Iyengar and Kinder, 1987; Merolla and Zechmeister, 2009; Raber, Hibbard, and Greenwald, ; and SteelFisher et al., .…”

How Do Low-Literacy Populations Perceive “Dirty Bombs”? Implications for Preparedness Messages

“…This analysis resulted in 10 perception variables and 2 action-related variables. The perception variables were named: (1) trust authority information, (2) trust authority response, (3) confidence in knowledge of ''dirty bomb,'' (4) need to know who is responsible, (5) distrust in authority, (6) family and pet concerns, (7) radiation concerns, (8) anti-compliant behavior, (9) believe I am prepared, and (10) know what to do. The 2 action variables were: (1) I would stay inside and (2) I have an emergency plan.…”

“…7 Key to this is the establishment of effective communication messages to reduce feelings of fear, distress, helplessness, and confusion. 8,9 Although post hoc analyses of terrorist emergencies in the United States, such as September 11, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the San Bernardino shootings, suggest that the public is generally willing to comply with government instructions, 10 studies also suggest that significant barriers may exist. 11,12 These barriers include distrust, lack of confidence, and fear of discrimination by the government or public health systems, [12][13][14] as well as concerns about information messaging credibility, inaccuracy, ambiguity, and inconsistency.…”