Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-k8lnt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T19:06:56.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of China’s Risk Communication in Response to SARS and H7N9 Using Principles Drawn From International Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 October 2017

Wuqi Qiu ,
Cordia Chu ,
Xiaohui Hou ,
Shannon Rutherford ,
Bin Zhu ,
Zhendong Tong  and
Ayan Mao
Wuqi Qiu
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health Information Research, Institute of Medical Information, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, China
Cordia Chu*
Affiliation:
Center for Environment and Population Health, Griffith University, Australia
Xiaohui Hou
Affiliation:
Department of Science, Education and International Cooperation, Chinese Center for Health Education, China
Shannon Rutherford
Affiliation:
Center for Environment and Population Health, Griffith University, Australia
Bin Zhu
Affiliation:
Health Emergency Center, Hangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention, China (Bin Zhu)
Zhendong Tong
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Management, Zhoushan Center for Disease Control and Prevention, China
Ayan Mao
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health Information Research, Institute of Medical Information, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, China
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Professor Cordia Chu, Center for Environment and Population Health, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia (C.Chu@griffith.edu.au).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

China’s emergency management of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) was heavily criticized, whereas the H7N9 response was praised by the international community.

Aims

The aims of this study were to examine and compare the strengths and weaknesses of risk communication conducted in response to SARS and H7N9 and their associated social impacts on affected communities in China.

Method

A qualitative comparative case study approach was employed in the present study, using a set of 8 risk communication principles selected from international literature to suit the Chinese context for the comparative analysis of emergency responses of SARS and H7N9.

Results

The study found significant differences in the risk communication conducted in the 2 cases. The SARS outbreak fully exposed China’s lack of experience in public health risk communication. By contrast, the Chinese government’s risk communication strategies had improved significantly during the H7N9 outbreak.

Discussion

Trust is the basis for communication. Maintaining an open and honest attitude and actively engaging stakeholders to address their risk information needs will serve to build trust and facilitate multi-sector collaborations in dealing with a public health crisis.

Conclusions

From SARS to H7N9, risk communication practices in China greatly improved, which, in turn, lessened adverse social impacts and improved outcomes in emergency management of public health crises. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;12:587–598)

Keywords

risk communicationemergency managementSARSH7N9China

Information

Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 12 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 587 - 598
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Maurice, J. Cost of protection against pandemics is small. The Lancet. 2016;387:e12.Google Scholar
2. Verikios, G, Sullivan, M, Stojanovski, P, Giesecke, J, Woo, G. Assessing regional risks from pandemic influenza: a scenario analysis. World Econ. 2015:32-37.Google Scholar
3. Lu, X, Xue, LAN. Managing the unexpected: sense-making in the Chinese emergency management system. Public Admin. 2016;94:414-429.Google Scholar
4. Hu, J, Zeng, AZ, Zhao, L. A comparative study of public-health emergency management. Ind Manage Data Syst. 2009;109:976-992.Google Scholar
5. Zhu, F, Yang, J. Application of risk communication in influenza epidemic prevention and control. Healt Econ Res. 2011:40-43.Google Scholar
6. Anderson, RM, Fraser, C, Ghani, AC, et al. Epidemiology, transmission dynamics and control of SARS: the 2002–2003 epidemic. Philos Trans R Soc London B Biol Sci. 2004;359:1091-1105.Google Scholar
7. Liu, S, Sun, J, Cai, J, et al. Epidemiological, clinical and viral characteristics of fatal cases of human avian influenza A (H7N9) virus in Zhejiang Province, China. J Infection. 2013;67:595-605.Google Scholar
8. Zhong, N, Zheng, B, Li, Y, et al. Epidemiology and cause of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in Guangdong, People’s Republic of China, in February, 2003. Lancet. 2003;362:1353-1358.Google Scholar
9. Gao, R, Cao, B, Hu, Y, et al. Human infection with a novel avian-origin influenza A (H7N9) virus. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1888-1897.Google Scholar
10. Wong, GW, Leung, TF. Bird flu: lessons from SARS. Paediatr Respir Rev. 2007;8:171-176.Google Scholar
11. Reperant, LA, MacKenzie, J, Osterhaus, AD. Periodic global One Health threats update. One Health. 2016;2:1-7.Google Scholar
12. Xiu, W. The outbreak of SARS in the world. Strait J Prev Med. 2003;9:80-81.Google Scholar
13. Gu, S, Lu, J, Yu, M, Wei, X, Hu, Y. Path analysis and evaluation about health communication for H7N9 emergencies in Shanghai in 2013. Health Educ Health Prom. 2014;9:1-5.Google Scholar
14. Gamhewage, G. Risk communication – A moving target in the fight against infectious hazards and epidemics. Wkly Epidemiol Rec. 2016;91:82-87.Google Scholar
15. Cool, L, Claravall, M, Hall, J, et al. Social media as a risk communication tool following Typhoon Haiyan. Western Pac Surveill Response J. 2015;6:86-90.Google Scholar
16. Qiu, W, Rutherford, S, Chu, C, Mao, A, Hou, X. Risk communication and public health. Glob J Med Public Health. 2016;5:1-11.Google Scholar
17. Biernacki, P. Snowball sampling: problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociol Methods Res. 1981;10:141.Google Scholar
18. Hilal, A, Alabri, SS. Using NVIVO for data analysis in qualitative research. Int Interdiscip J Educ. 2013;2:181-186.Google Scholar
19. Noble, H, Smith, J. Qualitative data analysis: a practical example. Evid Based Nurs. 2014;17:2-3.Google Scholar
20. Mishra, AK. Organizational responses to crisis. Trust Organizations Front Theory Res. 1996:261-287.Google Scholar
21. Han, J, Song, Y, Zhang, P. The construction of emergency communication model based on the kite-type co-orientation approach. Technol Educ Learn. 2012;136:243-250.Google Scholar
22. Xiang, Z. SARS impact government thinking. South Wind Window. 2003.Google Scholar
23. Zhang, E, Benoit, WL. Former Minister Zhang’s discourse on SARS: Government’s image restoration or destruction? Public Relat Rev. 2009;35:240-246.Google Scholar
24. Wang, W, Ruan, S. Simulating the SARS outbreak in Beijing with limited data. J Theor Biol. 2004;227:369-379.Google Scholar
25. Ding, H. Rhetorics of alternative media in an emerging epidemic: SARS, censorship, and extra-institutional risk communication. Tech Commun Q. 2009;18:327-350.Google Scholar
26. Xie, B. Reflections on H7N9 epidemic 10 years. People’s Tribune. 2013;12:005.Google Scholar
27. Zhang, Y, Yu, Y-S, Tang, Z-H, Chen, X-H, Zang, G-Q. 10th anniversary of SARS: China is better prepared for the H7N9 avian influenza outbreak. J Infect Dev Count. 2013;7:761-762.Google Scholar
28. Zong, P. From “SARS” to “H7N9”. Educ Elderly Home for the Elderly. 2013:24-25.Google Scholar
29. He, H, Zhang, C. National governance in public health emergency response: problems and implications. Changbai J. 2015:78-83.Google Scholar
30. Covello, V. Risk perception communication. Can J Public Health. 1995;86:80-82.Google Scholar
31. Qiu, W, Mao, A, Yan, X, et al. Review on prevention and control of public health emergency and supervision based on H7N9 avian flu in China. Chin J Public Health Manag. 2016;32:330-333.Google Scholar
32. Lin, A, Wu, Z. Study on risk communication in government emergency management. J Beijing University of Aeronautics Astronautics. 2010;23:12-17.Google Scholar
33. Cope, JR, Frost, M, Richun, L, Xie, R. Assessing knowledge and application of emergency risk communication principles among public health workers in China. Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;8:199-205.Google Scholar
34. Chang, H. Excerpts of SARS. Disaster Reduction in China. 2003;2:15.Google Scholar
35. Wang, Y. The H7N9 influenza virus in China–changes since SARS. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2348-2349.Google Scholar
36. Thompson, RA. Empathy and its origins in early development. In: Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998:144–157.Google Scholar
37. Barbisch, D, Koenig, KL, Shih, F-Y. Is there a case for quarantine? Perspectives from SARS to Ebola. Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:547-553.Google Scholar
38. Fairbanks, J, Plowman, KD, Rawlins, BL. Transparency in government communication. J Public Affairs. 2007;7:23-37.Google Scholar
39. Wishnick, E. Dilemmas of securitization and health risk management in the People’s Republic of China: the cases of SARS and avian influenza. Health Policy Planning. 2010;25:454-466.Google Scholar
40. Fang, S, Qi, L. Risk Society: the brand-new topic of government public management facing. Tribune Study. 2009;25:41-44.Google Scholar
41. Liu, J. Research on public health event reporting from the perspective of risk communication: Southwest University of Political Science and Law; 2014.Google Scholar
42. Yan, Z. Study on emergency management of major animal epidemic situation based on risk communication, Huazhong Agricultural University; 2012.Google Scholar
43. Xie, X, Zhen, R. Risk communication and public rationality. Adv Psychol Sci. 2003;11:375-381.Google Scholar
44. Guo, Z. Study on risk communication mechanism of emergency in public health emergencies: Nanchang University; 2012.Google Scholar