Table 3

Associations between EPPMa categories and self-reported willingness to respond (WTR) to a pandemic flu emergency

WTR if required

WTR if asked, but not required

%b

% Agreec

OR (95%CI)d

% agree

OR (95%CI)


By EPPM categories

EPPM - Threat

Low

51.2

79.0

Reference

69.9

Reference

High

48.8

86.8

1.58

75.2

1.23

(1.25 - 1.98)

(1.02 - 1.49)

EPPM - Efficacy

Low

51.4

72.6

Reference

58.6

Reference

High

48.6

95.8

9.33

88.9

5.86

(6.66 - 13.08)

(4.63 - 7.41)

EPPM - Combined

Low Threat/Low Efficacy

30.3

69.3

Reference

57.7

Reference

Low Threat/High Efficacy

21.2

96.3

13.09

90.1

7.12

(7.67 - 22.34)

(4.94 - 10.25)

High Threat/Low Efficacy

21.2

77.6

1.41

60.9

1.10

(1.05 - 1.90)

(0.85 - 1.42)

High Threat/High Efficacy

27.3

95.6

9.25

88.6

5.52

(5.94 - 14.40)

(4.03 - 7.56)


a Extended Parallel Process Model

b Percent of respondents included in category

c Percent agreeing with WTR statement (positive response)

d OR is the odds ratio provided in the logistic regression which compares the odds between a positive WTR response and a negative WTR response with respect to this EPPM category compared to its Reference category, adjusted for key demographic characteristics: gender, age, hours/week worked, highest education level completed and children/marital status.

Balicer et al. BMC Public Health 2010 10:436   doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-436

Open Data