Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Aug 1:17:e209.
doi: 10.1017/dmp.2022.174.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Barriers to Implementing Select Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions to Reduce the Transmission of Pandemic Influenza - United States, 2019

Faruque Ahmed  1 , Noreen Qualls  1 , Shelly Kowalczyk  2 , Suzanne Randolph Cunningham  2 , Nicole Zviedrite  1 , Amra Uzicanin  1
Affiliations

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Barriers to Implementing Select Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions to Reduce the Transmission of Pandemic Influenza - United States, 2019

Faruque Ahmed et al. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. .

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) reserved for influenza pandemics (voluntary home quarantine, use of face masks by ill persons, childcare facility closures, school closures, and social distancing at schools, workplaces, and mass gatherings).

Methods: Public health officials in all 50 states (including Washington, DC) and 8 territories, and a random sample of 822 local health departments (LHDs), were surveyed in 2019.

Results: The response rates for the states/ territories and LHDs were 75% (44/ 59) and 25% (206/ 822), respectively. Most of the state/ territorial respondents stated that the feasibility and acceptability of implementing NPIs were high, except for K-12 school closures lasting up to 6 weeks or 6 months. The LHD respondents also indicated that feasibility and acceptability were lowest for prolonged school closures. Compared to LHD respondents in suburban or urban areas, those in rural areas expressed lower feasibility and acceptability. Barriers to implementing NPIs included financial impact, compliance and difficulty in enforcement, perceived level of disease threat, and concerns regarding political implications.

Conclusion: Proactive strategies to systematically address perceived barriers and promote disease prevention ahead of a new pandemic are needed to increase receptivity and consistent adoption of NPIs and other evidence-based countermeasures.

Keywords: COVID-19; influenza; non-pharmaceutical interventions; pandemic; social distancing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Perceived feasibility in state/territorial and local health department jurisdictions of implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions during a severe influenza pandemic, 2019.  Abbreviations: SC, school closure; SD – school, social distancing at schools; SD – workplace, social distancing at workplaces; SD – gathering, social distancing at mass gatherings (e.g., modifying, postponing, or canceling large events). Notes: No. of observations for state/territorial and local health department jurisdictions are 44 and 187, respectively (unweighted). Percentages for local health department jurisdictions are weighted.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Perceived acceptability in state/territorial and local health department jurisdictions of implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions during a severe influenza pandemic, 2019.  Abbreviations: SC, school closure; SD – school, social distancing at schools; SD – workplace, social distancing at workplaces; SD – gathering, social distancing at mass gatherings (e.g., modifying, postponing, or canceling large events). Notes: No. of observations for state/territorial and local health department jurisdictions are 44 and 187, respectively (unweighted). Percentages for local health department jurisdictions are weighted.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Availability of surveillance data in state/territorial and local health department jurisdictions for triggering implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions during an influenza pandemic, 2019. Abbreviations: ILI, influenza-like illness; DK, don’t know. Notes: No. of observations for state/territorial and local health department jurisdictions are 44 and 187, respectively (unweighted). Percentages for local health department jurisdictions are weighted.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Qualls N, Levitt A, Kanade N, et al. Community mitigation guidelines to prevent pandemic influenza - United States, 2017. Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report Recommendations & Reports. 2017;66(1):1-34. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim pre-pandemic planning guidance: community strategy for pandemic influenza mitigation in the United States—early, targeted, layered use of nonpharmaceutical interventions. Published 2007. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/11425
    1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National standards for state, local, tribal, and territorial public health. Published October 2018 (updated January 2019). Accessed November 19, 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/cpr/readiness/capabilities.htm
    1. National Association of County and City Health Offıcials. National profıle of local health departments. Washington DC: NACCHO, 2019. Accessed October 15, 2020. https://www.naccho.org/uploads/downloadable-resources/Programs/Public-He...
    1. Blendon RJ, Koonin LM, Benson JM, et al. Public response to community mitigation measures for pandemic influenza. Emerg Infect Dis. May 2008;14(5):778-86. doi: 10.3201/eid1405.071437 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types