Dickmann Petra, Keeping Sam, Döring Nora, Schmidt Andrea E, Binder Claudia, Ariño-Blasco Sergio, Gil Joan
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), LSE Health, London, UK; dickmann risk communication (drc), London, UK; Department for Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Jena, Germany.
London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), LSE Health , London , UK.
Front Public Health. 2017 Mar 17;5:44. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2017.00044. eCollection 2017.
The threat posed by Meticillin-resistant (MRSA) has taken on an increasingly pan-European dimension. This article aims to provide an overview of the different approaches to the control of MRSA adopted in five European countries (Austria, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and the UK) and discusses data and reporting mechanisms, regulations, guidelines, and health policy approaches with a focus on risk communication. Our hypothesis is that current infection control practices in different European countries are implicit messages that contribute to the health-related risk communication and subsequently to the public perception of risk posed by MRSA. A reporting template was used to systematically collect information from each country.
Large variation in approaches was observed between countries. However, there were a number of consistent themes relevant to the communication of key information regarding MRSA, including misleading messages, inconsistencies in content and application of published guidelines, and frictions between the official communication and their adoption on provider level.
The variability of recommendations within, and across, countries could be contributing to the perception of inconsistency. Having inconsistent guidelines and practices in place may also be affecting the level at which recommended behaviors are adopted. The discrepancy between the official, explicit health messages around MRSA and the implicit messages stemming from the performance of infection control measures should, therefore, be a key target for those wishing to improve risk communication.
耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌(MRSA)构成的威胁已呈现出日益泛欧洲的态势。本文旨在概述五个欧洲国家(奥地利、德国、荷兰、西班牙和英国)在控制MRSA方面所采用的不同方法,并讨论数据及报告机制、法规、指南和卫生政策方法,重点关注风险沟通。我们的假设是,欧洲不同国家当前的感染控制措施是隐性信息,有助于进行与健康相关的风险沟通,进而影响公众对MRSA所构成风险的认知。我们使用了一个报告模板来系统地收集每个国家的信息。
各国在方法上存在很大差异。然而,在与MRSA关键信息沟通相关的方面存在一些一致的主题,包括误导性信息、已发布指南在内容和应用上的不一致,以及官方沟通与其在医疗机构层面的实际采用之间的矛盾。
各国国内及各国之间建议的差异可能导致人们感觉缺乏一致性。存在不一致的指南和做法也可能影响推荐行为的采用程度。因此,对于那些希望改善风险沟通的人来说,围绕MRSA的官方明确健康信息与感染控制措施实施中产生的隐性信息之间的差异应成为关键目标。