File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Public awareness, acceptability and risk perception about infectious diseases dual-use research of concern: A cross-sectional survey

TitlePublic awareness, acceptability and risk perception about infectious diseases dual-use research of concern: A cross-sectional survey
Authors
KeywordsHealth policy
Public health
Risk management
Issue Date2020
Citation
BMJ Open, 2020, v. 10, n. 1, article no. e029134 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: In this study, we aimed to measure the awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues in biosecurity posed by infectious diseases dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the community. DURC is conducted today in many locations around the world for the benefit of humanity but may also cause harm through either a laboratory accident or deliberate misuse. Most DURC is approved by animal ethics committees, which do not typically consider harm to humans. Given the unique characteristics of contagion and the potential for epidemics and pandemics, the community is an important stakeholder in DURC. Design: Self-administered web-based cross-sectional survey. Participants: Participants over the age of 18 in Australia and 21 in the USA were included in the survey. A total of 604 participants completed the study. The results of 52 participants were excluded due to potential biases about DURC stemming from their employment as medical researchers, infectious diseases researchers or law enforcement professionals, leaving 552 participants. Of those, 274 respondents resided in Australia and 278 in the USA. Outcomes: Baseline awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues surrounding DURC. Changes in perception from baseline were measured after provision of information about DURC. Results: Presurvey, 77% of respondents were unaware of DURC and 64% found it unacceptable or were unsure. Two-thirds of respondents did not change their views. The baseline perception of high risk for laboratory accidents (29%) and deliberate bioterrorism (34%) was low but increased with increasing provision of information (42% and 44% respectively, p<0.001), with men more accepting of DURC (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.57, p=0.002). Postsurvey, higher education predicted lower risk perception of laboratory accidents (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p=0.02) and bioterrorism (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80, p=0.004). Conclusion: The community is an important stakeholder in infectious diseases DURC but has a low awareness of this kind of research. Only a minority support DURC, and this proportion decreased with increasing provision of knowledge. There were differences of opinion between age groups, gender and education levels. The community should be informed and engaged in decisions about DURC.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/325461
PubMed Central ID
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMacintyre, Chandini Raina-
dc.contributor.authorAdam, Dillon Charles-
dc.contributor.authorTurner, Robin-
dc.contributor.authorChughtai, Abrar Ahmad-
dc.contributor.authorEngells, Thomas-
dc.date.accessioned2023-02-27T07:33:30Z-
dc.date.available2023-02-27T07:33:30Z-
dc.date.issued2020-
dc.identifier.citationBMJ Open, 2020, v. 10, n. 1, article no. e029134-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/325461-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: In this study, we aimed to measure the awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues in biosecurity posed by infectious diseases dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the community. DURC is conducted today in many locations around the world for the benefit of humanity but may also cause harm through either a laboratory accident or deliberate misuse. Most DURC is approved by animal ethics committees, which do not typically consider harm to humans. Given the unique characteristics of contagion and the potential for epidemics and pandemics, the community is an important stakeholder in DURC. Design: Self-administered web-based cross-sectional survey. Participants: Participants over the age of 18 in Australia and 21 in the USA were included in the survey. A total of 604 participants completed the study. The results of 52 participants were excluded due to potential biases about DURC stemming from their employment as medical researchers, infectious diseases researchers or law enforcement professionals, leaving 552 participants. Of those, 274 respondents resided in Australia and 278 in the USA. Outcomes: Baseline awareness, acceptability and perceptions of current issues surrounding DURC. Changes in perception from baseline were measured after provision of information about DURC. Results: Presurvey, 77% of respondents were unaware of DURC and 64% found it unacceptable or were unsure. Two-thirds of respondents did not change their views. The baseline perception of high risk for laboratory accidents (29%) and deliberate bioterrorism (34%) was low but increased with increasing provision of information (42% and 44% respectively, p<0.001), with men more accepting of DURC (OR=1.79, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.57, p=0.002). Postsurvey, higher education predicted lower risk perception of laboratory accidents (OR=0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93, p=0.02) and bioterrorism (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.80, p=0.004). Conclusion: The community is an important stakeholder in infectious diseases DURC but has a low awareness of this kind of research. Only a minority support DURC, and this proportion decreased with increasing provision of knowledge. There were differences of opinion between age groups, gender and education levels. The community should be informed and engaged in decisions about DURC.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofBMJ Open-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectHealth policy-
dc.subjectPublic health-
dc.subjectRisk management-
dc.titlePublic awareness, acceptability and risk perception about infectious diseases dual-use research of concern: A cross-sectional survey-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029134-
dc.identifier.pmid31911509-
dc.identifier.pmid31911509-
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC6955500-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85077718785-
dc.identifier.volume10-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spagearticle no. e029134-
dc.identifier.epagearticle no. e029134-
dc.identifier.eissn2044-6055-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000519306600183-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats