Um grande surto de Legionella ausente do debate público

The Legionnaires’ disease outbreak that hit Portugal in November 2014 was the third largest worldwide and was declared a “great public health emergency”. Nonetheless, the Portuguese outbreak, despite killing 12 people and infecting 375 others did not promote extensive media coverage, nor did it make it into the political debate. We conducted a quantitative analysis of 83 news pieces on Legionella published in four national newspapers, and interviewed the journalists who covered this outbreak. The communication process was controlled by a small group of official sources and the outbreak was pushed away from news lineups due to two political scandals. The production of another news wave made the outbreak’s news wave to break prematurely.O surto de Legionella que atingiu Portugal em novembro de 2014 foi o terceiro maior em nível mundial, constituindo “uma grande emergência de saúde pública”. Ainda assim, o surto português não promoveu uma longa cobertura mediática, apesar das 12 mortes e 375 pessoas infetadas. Nem entrou no debate político. Fizemos uma análise quantitativa das 83 notícias sobre Legionella publicadas em quatro jornais nacionais, e conduzimos entrevistas com os jornalistas que cobriram este surto. O processo comunicativo foi controlado por um pequeno grupo de fontes oficiais, e o surto foi rapidamente afastado dos alinhamentos noticiosos, sendo substituído por dois escândalos políticos. A produção de outra onda noticiosa fez com que a onda noticiosa do surto de Legionella se quebrasse prematuramente.(undefined)info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40–49 and 50+

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The US Preventive Services Task Force updated mammography recommendations in 2009, recommending against routine screening for women ages 40–49 and reducing recommended frequency for women 50+. The recommendation changes were highly controversial and created conflicting recommendations across professional organizations. This study examines overall awareness of the changes, accuracy of knowledge about changes, factors related to both overall awareness and accuracy, sources of knowledge about changes, and attitudes about the new recommendations.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>National telephone survey of 508 women, half aged 40–49 and half 50+, conducted one year after the update (November/December 2010; cooperation rate was 36%). Measures include awareness, accuracy, source of knowledge, interactions with providers, and attitudes about the changes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fewer than half of women were aware of the guideline changes. Younger, more educated, and higher income women were more aware. Of those who were aware, only 12% correctly reported both change in age and frequency. Accuracy was not associated with demographics. The majority learned of changes through the media and the majority had negative attitudes about the changes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Despite widespread coverage of the recommendation changes, overall awareness in the relevant population is low. Increasing awareness and addressing attitudes about the changes is necessary to ensure the use of recommendations to impact screening behavior.</p