Communicable Diseases Policy Research Group (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine), Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Glob Public Health. 2012;7(7):717-30. doi: 10.1080/17441692.2012.699541. Epub 2012 Jul 24.
This article explores differing understandings of 'risk' in relation to pandemic influenza policy and control. After a preliminary overview of methodological and practical problems in risk analysis, ways in which risk was framed and managed in three historical cases were examined. The interdependence between scientific empiricism and political decision-making led to the mismanagement of the 1976 swine influenza scare in the USA. The 2004 H5N1 avian influenza outbreak in Thailand, on the other hand, was undermined by questions of national economic interest and concerns over global health security. Finally, the recent global emergency of pandemic influenza H1N1 in 2009 demonstrated the difficulties of risk management under a context of pre-established perceptions about the characteristics and inevitability of a pandemic. Following the analysis of these cases, a conceptual framework is presented to illustrate ways in which changing relationships between risk assessment, risk perception and risk management can result in differing policy strategies.
本文探讨了在大流行性流感政策和控制方面对“风险”的不同理解。在对风险分析的方法和实际问题进行初步概述之后,本文研究了三个历史案例中风险的框架和管理方式。科学经验主义与政治决策之间的相互依存关系导致了 1976 年美国猪流感恐慌的管理不善。另一方面,2004 年泰国 H5N1 禽流感的爆发受到国家经济利益问题以及对全球卫生安全的担忧的影响。最后,2009 年最近发生的大流行性流感 H1N1 全球紧急情况表明,在对大流行的特征和必然性预先形成的看法的背景下,风险管理存在困难。在对这些案例进行分析之后,本文提出了一个概念框架来说明风险评估、风险感知和风险管理之间不断变化的关系如何导致不同的政策策略。