Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans

The study sought to understand better how people come to believe they have been exposed to biological and chemical warfare. We conducted telephone interviews with 1,009 American veterans (65% response rate) deployed and not deployed to the Gulf War, a conflict during which there were credible threat...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Risk analysis 2006-04, Vol.26 (2), p.337-345
Hauptverfasser: Brewer, Noel T., Lillie, Sarah E., Hallman, William K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 345
container_issue 2
container_start_page 337
container_title Risk analysis
container_volume 26
creator Brewer, Noel T.
Lillie, Sarah E.
Hallman, William K.
description The study sought to understand better how people come to believe they have been exposed to biological and chemical warfare. We conducted telephone interviews with 1,009 American veterans (65% response rate) deployed and not deployed to the Gulf War, a conflict during which there were credible threats that such warfare could be used. Only 6% of non‐Gulf War veterans reported exposure to biological or chemical warfare, but most of Gulf War veterans reported exposure (64%). The majority of these were unsure whether the exposure was chemical or biological in nature. The most commonly reported exposure indicators were receiving an alert from the military and having physical symptoms. Veterans who were certain of the type of exposure (biological or chemical) were more likely to recall having been told by the military and to recall physical symptoms. Future communications with soldiers and the general public about biological and chemical warfare may need to emphasize the uncertain nature of such risk information. Evaluations of exposure diagnostic technologies should take into account the problem of people initially believing, but not later discounting, false positive results.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00750.x
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67819143</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67819143</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5440-136cd8d84d754dc5fc8c5a996d0e06e63fa94ed70630fc0d2f306b6de3d83a9b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUFvEzEQhS1ERUPgLyCLA7cN47XX3kXikEQlbakKago5Ws56lmzYxKmdLcm_r7eJisSl-OKR5ntPmvcIoQwGLL6PywHLeJHIIhWDFEAOAFQGg90L0ntavCQ9SFWaCM7TU_I6hCUAA8jUK3LKZKa4TEWP4Gyxp9_RbRqkI2xqvEd6u8A9naFHerbbuICWbh0d1a5xv-rSNNR5Ol7g6nGeGV8Zj5_okE5bfx-FrqKTtqm6Df2JW_RmHd6Qk8o0Ad8e_z758eXsdnyeXH2bXIyHV0mZCQEJ47K0uc2FVZmwZVaVeZmZopAWECRKXplCoFUgOVQl2LTiIOfSIrc5N8Wc98mHg-_Gu7sWw1av6lBi05g1ujZoqXJWsJjIcyCXIgZUyGdBpphURYT75P0_4NK1fh2v1SkoqVIhigjlB6j0LgSPld74emX8XjPQXbN6qbsCdVeg7prVj83qXZS-O_q38xXav8JjlRH4fAD-1A3u_9tY31xMh3GK-uSgr8MWd09643_H2LjK9Ox6oq8vzy_V6OtU3_AHbOu_Sg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>207672449</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><creator>Brewer, Noel T. ; Lillie, Sarah E. ; Hallman, William K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Brewer, Noel T. ; Lillie, Sarah E. ; Hallman, William K.</creatorcontrib><description>The study sought to understand better how people come to believe they have been exposed to biological and chemical warfare. We conducted telephone interviews with 1,009 American veterans (65% response rate) deployed and not deployed to the Gulf War, a conflict during which there were credible threats that such warfare could be used. Only 6% of non‐Gulf War veterans reported exposure to biological or chemical warfare, but most of Gulf War veterans reported exposure (64%). The majority of these were unsure whether the exposure was chemical or biological in nature. The most commonly reported exposure indicators were receiving an alert from the military and having physical symptoms. Veterans who were certain of the type of exposure (biological or chemical) were more likely to recall having been told by the military and to recall physical symptoms. Future communications with soldiers and the general public about biological and chemical warfare may need to emphasize the uncertain nature of such risk information. Evaluations of exposure diagnostic technologies should take into account the problem of people initially believing, but not later discounting, false positive results.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0272-4332</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1539-6924</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00750.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16573624</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK: Blackwell Publishing, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Analysis ; Belief &amp; doubt ; Beliefs ; Biological &amp; chemical weapons ; Biological warfare ; Biological Warfare - psychology ; Biological weapons ; chemical warfare ; Chemical Warfare - psychology ; Chemical weapons ; Communication ; Female ; Gulf War ; Humans ; Interviews ; Interviews as Topic ; Male ; Perception ; Persian Gulf War ; Risk ; risk perception ; Studies ; symptom reporting ; U.S.A ; United States ; Veterans ; Veterans - psychology ; Warfare ; Weapons of mass destruction</subject><ispartof>Risk analysis, 2006-04, Vol.26 (2), p.337-345</ispartof><rights>2006 The Society for Risk Analysis</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5440-136cd8d84d754dc5fc8c5a996d0e06e63fa94ed70630fc0d2f306b6de3d83a9b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5440-136cd8d84d754dc5fc8c5a996d0e06e63fa94ed70630fc0d2f306b6de3d83a9b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1539-6924.2006.00750.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1539-6924.2006.00750.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16573624$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Brewer, Noel T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lillie, Sarah E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hallman, William K.</creatorcontrib><title>Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans</title><title>Risk analysis</title><addtitle>Risk Anal</addtitle><description>The study sought to understand better how people come to believe they have been exposed to biological and chemical warfare. We conducted telephone interviews with 1,009 American veterans (65% response rate) deployed and not deployed to the Gulf War, a conflict during which there were credible threats that such warfare could be used. Only 6% of non‐Gulf War veterans reported exposure to biological or chemical warfare, but most of Gulf War veterans reported exposure (64%). The majority of these were unsure whether the exposure was chemical or biological in nature. The most commonly reported exposure indicators were receiving an alert from the military and having physical symptoms. Veterans who were certain of the type of exposure (biological or chemical) were more likely to recall having been told by the military and to recall physical symptoms. Future communications with soldiers and the general public about biological and chemical warfare may need to emphasize the uncertain nature of such risk information. Evaluations of exposure diagnostic technologies should take into account the problem of people initially believing, but not later discounting, false positive results.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Belief &amp; doubt</subject><subject>Beliefs</subject><subject>Biological &amp; chemical weapons</subject><subject>Biological warfare</subject><subject>Biological Warfare - psychology</subject><subject>Biological weapons</subject><subject>chemical warfare</subject><subject>Chemical Warfare - psychology</subject><subject>Chemical weapons</subject><subject>Communication</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gulf War</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Interviews as Topic</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Persian Gulf War</subject><subject>Risk</subject><subject>risk perception</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>symptom reporting</subject><subject>U.S.A</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Veterans</subject><subject>Veterans - psychology</subject><subject>Warfare</subject><subject>Weapons of mass destruction</subject><issn>0272-4332</issn><issn>1539-6924</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkUFvEzEQhS1ERUPgLyCLA7cN47XX3kXikEQlbakKago5Ws56lmzYxKmdLcm_r7eJisSl-OKR5ntPmvcIoQwGLL6PywHLeJHIIhWDFEAOAFQGg90L0ntavCQ9SFWaCM7TU_I6hCUAA8jUK3LKZKa4TEWP4Gyxp9_RbRqkI2xqvEd6u8A9naFHerbbuICWbh0d1a5xv-rSNNR5Ol7g6nGeGV8Zj5_okE5bfx-FrqKTtqm6Df2JW_RmHd6Qk8o0Ad8e_z758eXsdnyeXH2bXIyHV0mZCQEJ47K0uc2FVZmwZVaVeZmZopAWECRKXplCoFUgOVQl2LTiIOfSIrc5N8Wc98mHg-_Gu7sWw1av6lBi05g1ujZoqXJWsJjIcyCXIgZUyGdBpphURYT75P0_4NK1fh2v1SkoqVIhigjlB6j0LgSPld74emX8XjPQXbN6qbsCdVeg7prVj83qXZS-O_q38xXav8JjlRH4fAD-1A3u_9tY31xMh3GK-uSgr8MWd09643_H2LjK9Ox6oq8vzy_V6OtU3_AHbOu_Sg</recordid><startdate>200604</startdate><enddate>200604</enddate><creator>Brewer, Noel T.</creator><creator>Lillie, Sarah E.</creator><creator>Hallman, William K.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U1</scope><scope>7U2</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200604</creationdate><title>Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans</title><author>Brewer, Noel T. ; Lillie, Sarah E. ; Hallman, William K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5440-136cd8d84d754dc5fc8c5a996d0e06e63fa94ed70630fc0d2f306b6de3d83a9b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Belief &amp; doubt</topic><topic>Beliefs</topic><topic>Biological &amp; chemical weapons</topic><topic>Biological warfare</topic><topic>Biological Warfare - psychology</topic><topic>Biological weapons</topic><topic>chemical warfare</topic><topic>Chemical Warfare - psychology</topic><topic>Chemical weapons</topic><topic>Communication</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gulf War</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Interviews as Topic</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Persian Gulf War</topic><topic>Risk</topic><topic>risk perception</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>symptom reporting</topic><topic>U.S.A</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Veterans</topic><topic>Veterans - psychology</topic><topic>Warfare</topic><topic>Weapons of mass destruction</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Brewer, Noel T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lillie, Sarah E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hallman, William K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Risk Abstracts</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Risk analysis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Brewer, Noel T.</au><au>Lillie, Sarah E.</au><au>Hallman, William K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans</atitle><jtitle>Risk analysis</jtitle><addtitle>Risk Anal</addtitle><date>2006-04</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>337</spage><epage>345</epage><pages>337-345</pages><issn>0272-4332</issn><eissn>1539-6924</eissn><abstract>The study sought to understand better how people come to believe they have been exposed to biological and chemical warfare. We conducted telephone interviews with 1,009 American veterans (65% response rate) deployed and not deployed to the Gulf War, a conflict during which there were credible threats that such warfare could be used. Only 6% of non‐Gulf War veterans reported exposure to biological or chemical warfare, but most of Gulf War veterans reported exposure (64%). The majority of these were unsure whether the exposure was chemical or biological in nature. The most commonly reported exposure indicators were receiving an alert from the military and having physical symptoms. Veterans who were certain of the type of exposure (biological or chemical) were more likely to recall having been told by the military and to recall physical symptoms. Future communications with soldiers and the general public about biological and chemical warfare may need to emphasize the uncertain nature of such risk information. Evaluations of exposure diagnostic technologies should take into account the problem of people initially believing, but not later discounting, false positive results.</abstract><cop>350 Main Street , Malden , MA 02148 , USA , and 9600 Garsington Road , Oxford OX4 2DQ , UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing, Inc</pub><pmid>16573624</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00750.x</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0272-4332
ispartof Risk analysis, 2006-04, Vol.26 (2), p.337-345
issn 0272-4332
1539-6924
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67819143
source MEDLINE; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete; Access via Wiley Online Library
subjects Adult
Analysis
Belief & doubt
Beliefs
Biological & chemical weapons
Biological warfare
Biological Warfare - psychology
Biological weapons
chemical warfare
Chemical Warfare - psychology
Chemical weapons
Communication
Female
Gulf War
Humans
Interviews
Interviews as Topic
Male
Perception
Persian Gulf War
Risk
risk perception
Studies
symptom reporting
U.S.A
United States
Veterans
Veterans - psychology
Warfare
Weapons of mass destruction
title Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T16%3A41%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Why%20People%20Believe%20They%20Were%20Exposed%20to%20Biological%20or%20Chemical%20Warfare:%20A%20Survey%20of%20Gulf%20War%20Veterans&rft.jtitle=Risk%20analysis&rft.au=Brewer,%20Noel%20T.&rft.date=2006-04&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=337&rft.epage=345&rft.pages=337-345&rft.issn=0272-4332&rft.eissn=1539-6924&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00750.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67819143%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=207672449&rft_id=info:pmid/16573624&rfr_iscdi=true