BMJ  2007;335:1143 (1 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39367.455243.BE (published 1 November 2007)

Research

Public information needs after the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210 in London: cross sectional telephone survey and qualitative analysis

¹ King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Department of Psychological Medicine, London SE5 9RJ, ² Health Protection Agency, London Region, ³ Health Protection Agency, Centre for Infections, ⁴ Health Protection Agency, Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, Porton Down, Wiltshire

Objectives To identify public perceptions of the risk to health after the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210 (²¹⁰Po) in London and to assess the impact of public health communications.

Design Cross sectional telephone survey and qualitative interviews.

Setting London, United Kingdom.

Participants 1000 people completed the cross sectional survey and 86 potentially exposed people completed the qualitative interviews.

Main outcome measures Perception of risk to personal health after the ²¹⁰Po incident. Qualitative interviews were analysed with an emphasis on information needs.

Results 11.7% of the survey sample (n=117) perceived their health to be at risk. Aside from personal variables the main predictors of perceived risk to health were believing that the incident was related to terrorism (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 4.6) rather than to espionage, that it was targeted at the wider public rather than one person (5.9, 3.2 to 10.9), and that it could affect people who had not been in the contaminated area (3.2, 2.1 to 5.1). Participants in the qualitative interviews were generally satisfied with the information they had received, although they would have preferred more information about their individual risk of exposure, the results of their urine tests, and the health implications of the incident.

Conclusions Perceptions of the public that the ²¹⁰Po incident in London in 2006 was related to espionage helped to reassure them that the risks to personal health were low. In the event of future incidents it is important to ensure that detailed, comprehensible information about the risks of any exposure is available.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Related Articles

Communicating risk to the public after radiological incidents

Steven M Becker
BMJ 2007 335: 1106-1107. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Effect of providing information about normal test results on patients' reassurance: randomised controlled trial

Keith J Petrie, Jan Tobias Müller, Frederike Schirmbeck, Liesje Donkin, Elizabeth Broadbent, Christopher J Ellis, Greg Gamble, and Winfried Rief
BMJ 2007 334: 352. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Psychological and behavioural reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005: cross sectional survey of a representative sample of Londoners

G James Rubin, Chris R Brewin, Neil Greenberg, John Simpson, and Simon Wessely
BMJ 2005 331: 606. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• (2007). Polonium in the Sushi: Public Reaction to Intentional Radiation Exposure. JWatch Emergency Med. 2007: 5-5 [Full text]  
• Becker, S. M (2007). Communicating risk to the public after radiological incidents. BMJ 335: 1106-1107 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Playing “Cassandra” or “Crying Wolf”? – a challenge to information management in managing the public’s risk perception to health threats

Niyi Awofeso
bmj.com, 7 Nov 2007 [Full text]

Alopecia areata following Polonium-210 exposure: a psychological trigger?

Abby E Macbeth, et al.
bmj.com, 6 Dec 2007 [Full text]