The Anthrax Vaccine and Research: Reactions from Postal Workers and Public Health Professionals

Sandra Crouse Quinn · Tammy L. Thomas · Supriya Kumar

26 citations0/0 files storedBiosecurity and Bioterrorism Biodefense Strategy Practice and Science

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy Ethics in Clinical Research Risk Perception and Management

Abstract

During the 2001 anthrax attacks, public health agencies faced operational and communication decisions about the use of antibiotic prophylaxis and the anthrax vaccine with affected groups, including postal workers. This communication occurred within an evolving situation with incomplete and uncertain data. Guidelines for prophylactic antibiotics changed several times, contributing to confusion and mistrust. At the end of 60 days of taking antibiotics, people were offered an additional 40 days' supply of antibiotics, with or without the anthrax vaccine, the former constituting an investigational new drug protocol. Using data from interviews and focus groups with 65 postal workers in 3 sites and structured interviews with 16 public health professionals, this article examines the challenges for public health professionals who were responsible for communication with postal workers about the vaccine. Multiple factors affected the response, including a lack of trust, risk perception, disagreement about the recommendation, and the controversy over the military's use of the vaccine. Some postal workers reacted with suspicion to the vaccine offer, believing that they were the subjects of research, and some African American workers specifically drew an analogy to the Tuskegee syphilis study. The consent forms required for the protocol heightened mistrust. Postal workers also had complex and ambivalent responses to additional research on their health. The anthrax attacks present us with an opportunity to understand the challenges of communication in the context of uncertain science and suggest key strategies that may improve communications about vaccines and other drugs authorized for experimental use in future public health emergencies.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 26 citations exist upstream.

References

1997The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study 2001Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting 2003Best Practices in Public Health Risk and Crisis Communication 2004Health risk communication and amplification: learning from the MMR vaccination controversy 1989Hazard versus Outrage in the Public Perception of Risk 2008Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication in a Pandemic: A Model for Building Capacity and Resilience of Minority Communities 2006The MMR vaccination and autism controversy in United Kingdom 1998–2005: Inevitable community outrage or a failure of risk communication?2006Subjective and Objective Risk as Predictors of Influenza Vaccination during the Vaccine Shortage of 2004-2005

Cited by

2020The SPARS Pandemic 2025-2028: A Futuristic Scenario to Facilitate Medical Countermeasure Communication 2012Predicting Response to Reassurances and Uncertainties in Bioterrorism Communications for Urban Populations in New York and California 2020A Public Health Systems View of Risk Communication About Zika

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.