Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES: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.

SUBMITTER: MacIntyre CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6955500 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

MacIntyre Chandini Raina CR Adam Dillon Charles DC Turner Robin R Chughtai Abrar Ahmad AA Engells Thomas T

BMJ open 20200106 1

<h4>Objectives</h4>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 ...[more]

PMID: 31911509

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention.MethodsA survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling.Results1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care.ConclusionsThe proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed.

Project description:This study aimed to understand the knowledge of Portuguese citizens about air quality and the extent to which the concerns about specific environmental problems can motivate their acquaintance of information. Moreover, this study also allowed to understand which information about air quality needs further dissemination to provide the citizens with all the available tools and the correct knowledge. For this, a national online survey about air quality perception was conducted, where 1131 answers were obtained and two different populations were compared: the general population and a sub-population from an urban-industrial area of Lisbon metropolitan area that had experienced frequent air pollution events in the past. Air pollution was considered the environmental topic of higher concern among this sub-population (61.4%), while in the general population it ranked thirdly (27.4%). Generally, the sub-population showed higher knowledge about air quality than the general population, with 61% being able to identify at least one air pollutant. The perception of the local air quality was also very different between populations, with 61% of the sub-population considering it poor or very poor, while only 14% of the general population had the same perception, which highlights the different levels of concern between populations. A weak knowledge about air pollutants (50% of the general population could not identify any air pollutant) and an erroneous perception of the contribution of the different pollution sources to air quality levels were found. More than 50% of the respondents of both populations were considered to not have enough information regarding the air quality in their area of residence, with the national air quality database being unknown to almost everyone. Overall, strong efforts should be made to increase the awareness about the importance of air quality, which may promote a higher acceptance of the implementation of future actions to improve air quality.

Project description:BackgroundPublic awareness and engagement are among the main prerequisites for protecting the rights of research participants and for successful and sustainable functioning of research biobanks. The aim of our study was to analyse public awareness and attitudes towards research biobanks in Latvia, and to compare these data with the results of the 2010 Eurobarometer study. We also analysed the influence of awareness and attitudes towards biobanks on willingness to participate in biobank studies and on preferred type of informed consent.MethodsWe developed a 12-question survey repeating seven questions about biobanks from the 2010 Eurobarometer questionnaire and adding five others. After describing the study variables, we performed a two-stage analysis of the results. In the first stage we analysed differences between the answers from 2010 and 2019 and conducted univariate analyses of relationships among particular variables, and between those variables and the socio-demographic characteristics of participants. In the second stage we investigated multivariable associations of willingness to participate and type of consent with awareness, trust and the socio-economic characteristics of participants.ResultsAccording to our study, the general public in Latvia is still not well informed about research biobanks. Fewer respondents have heard about research biobanks than in 2010. At the same time, the number of respondents who are willing to donate biological samples and personal data to a biobank has increased, e.g. the number of respondents who would definitely or probably be willing to provide information about themselves has increased from 25.8.% to 40.7 since 2010. Overall, concerns about the donation of different types of biological samples and data to a biobank have slightly decreased.ConclusionsPublic awareness about biobanks is important for their sustainability. It needs to be increased not only by traditional methods of informing the public, but also by more innovative and participatory approaches, e.g. by citizen science projects. There is a need to strengthen the public visibility and trustworthiness of ethics committees in Latvia in the field of biobanking.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets