Ural Self-rated health Poor Good Perceived susceptibility Low High Perceived severity Low High Bonding social capital order Stattic Neighborhood support Bridging social capital Association membership No Yes Linking social capital General government trust Trust in government’s capacity to GW610742 supplier handle an influenza pandemic 1.42 (1.16?.74)** 1.21 (0.98?.50) 1.33 (1.06?.68)* 1.16 (0.92?.47) 1 1.62 (1.12?.33)** 1 1.65 (1.11?.45)* 1.12 (0.95?.31) 1.22 (1.02?.45)* 1 2.41 (1.58?.68)** 1 2.27 (1.42?.64)** 1 3.53 (1.78?.01)** 1 3.07 (1.51?.21)** 1 0.99 (0.70?.40) 1 0.73 (0.50?.07) 1 0.73 (0.51?.07) 0.53 (0.32?.86)* 1 0.75 (0.50?.13) 0.64 (0.38?.12) 1 1.13 (0.80?.59) 1 1.55 (1.01?.36)* 1 2.26 (1.50?.42)** 5.07 (3.30?.79)** 1 1.79 (1.09?.93)** 4.04 (2.29?.12)** 1 1.91 (1.20?.03)** 2.49 (1.45?.30)** 1.17 (0.76?.82) 3.83 (1.17?2.56)* 1 1.07 (0.63?.77) 1.21 (0.65?.23) 0.90 (0.56?.45) 1.63 (0.47?.67) 1 0.84 (0.50?.42) 0.72 (0.44?.18) 0.25 (0.16?.41)** 1 0.77 (0.43?.40) 0.82 (0.43?.60) 0.38 (0.19?.74)** 1 0.67 (0.47?.94)* 1 0.53 (0.36?.78)** OR (95 CI)a AOR (95 CI)b*p <. 05. **p <. 01.aCrude Odds Ratios. Adjusted Odds Ratios controlling all of the other variables.bdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122970.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0122970 April 15,9 /Social Capital and Behavioral Intentions in an Influenza PandemicTable 4. Association between social capital, sociodemographic factors, risk perception, and the intention to wash hands more frequently.Variables Sociodemographic factors and risk perception Gender jir.2014.0001 Female Male Age 20?4 35?9 50?4 65 Monthly family income < NT 50,000 NT 50,000?9,999 NT 90,000?79,999 NT 180,000 Missing Education High school graduates Some college College graduates Marital status Others Married Locality Urban Suburban Rural Self-rated health Poor Good Perceived susceptibility Low High Perceived severity Low High Bonding social capital Neighborhood support Bridging social capital Association membership No Yes Linking Social Capital General government trust Trust in government's capacity to handle an influenza pandemic 1.45 (1.13?.83)** 0.92 (0.72?.20) 1.45 (1.11?.89)** 0.83 (0.63?.11) 1 1.21 (0.79?.84) 1 0.97 (0.62?.52) 1.50 (1.22?.83)** 1.43 (1.15?.78)** 1 1.82 (1.07?.11)* 1 1.62 (0.92?.85) 1 2.93 (1.35?.39)* 1 2.93 (1.33?.45)** 1 0.96 (0.63?.46) 1 0.90 (0.58?.41) 1 0.53 (0.35?.82)* 1.02 (0.48?.14) 1 0.54 (0.34?.84)* 0.98 (0.45?.12) 1 1.65 (1.09?.48)* 1 1.18 (0.71?.97) 1 1.51 (0.86?.65) 1.29 (0.80?.08) 1 1.72 (0.88?.37) 1.70 (0.88?.28) 1 1.11 (0.64?.95) 1.17 (0.63?.14) 0.92 (0.52?.62) 2.72 (0.63?1.67) 1 0.95 (0.52?.75) 0.99 (0.51?.94) 0.87 (0.48?.58) 2.66 (0.59?2.02) 1 2.06 (1.19?.59)** 2.47 (1.39?.38)** 1.20 (0.68?.12) 1 1.92 (1.01?.65) 2.34 (1.11?.92) 1.35 (0.61?.01) 1 0.78 (0.52?.19) 1 0.75 (0.49?.16) OR (95 CI)a AOR (95 CI)b*p <. 05. **p <. 01.aCrude Odds Ratios. Adjusted Odds Ratios controlling all of the other variables.bdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122970.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0122970 April 15,10 /Social Capital and Behavioral Intentions in an Influenza Pandemicawareness about the disease through social networks, as well as by promoting discussion and problem solving regarding feasible actions [32]. In addition, peer pressure or moral responsibility, as derived from the solidarity of local social networks, may drive people to implement health measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Some researchers have suggested that increasing community-level social capital is especially recommended in disaster preparedness becaus.Ural Self-rated health Poor Good Perceived susceptibility Low High Perceived severity Low High Bonding social capital Neighborhood support Bridging social capital Association membership No Yes Linking social capital General government trust Trust in government's capacity to handle an influenza pandemic 1.42 (1.16?.74)** 1.21 (0.98?.50) 1.33 (1.06?.68)* 1.16 (0.92?.47) 1 1.62 (1.12?.33)** 1 1.65 (1.11?.45)* 1.12 (0.95?.31) 1.22 (1.02?.45)* 1 2.41 (1.58?.68)** 1 2.27 (1.42?.64)** 1 3.53 (1.78?.01)** 1 3.07 (1.51?.21)** 1 0.99 (0.70?.40) 1 0.73 (0.50?.07) 1 0.73 (0.51?.07) 0.53 (0.32?.86)* 1 0.75 (0.50?.13) 0.64 (0.38?.12) 1 1.13 (0.80?.59) 1 1.55 (1.01?.36)* 1 2.26 (1.50?.42)** 5.07 (3.30?.79)** 1 1.79 (1.09?.93)** 4.04 (2.29?.12)** 1 1.91 (1.20?.03)** 2.49 (1.45?.30)** 1.17 (0.76?.82) 3.83 (1.17?2.56)* 1 1.07 (0.63?.77) 1.21 (0.65?.23) 0.90 (0.56?.45) 1.63 (0.47?.67) 1 0.84 (0.50?.42) 0.72 (0.44?.18) 0.25 (0.16?.41)** 1 0.77 (0.43?.40) 0.82 (0.43?.60) 0.38 (0.19?.74)** 1 0.67 (0.47?.94)* 1 0.53 (0.36?.78)** OR (95 CI)a AOR (95 CI)b*p <. 05. **p <. 01.aCrude Odds Ratios. Adjusted Odds Ratios controlling all of the other variables.bdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122970.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0122970 April 15,9 /Social Capital and Behavioral Intentions in an Influenza PandemicTable 4. Association between social capital, sociodemographic factors, risk perception, and the intention to wash hands more frequently.Variables Sociodemographic factors and risk perception Gender jir.2014.0001 Female Male Age 20?4 35?9 50?4 65 Monthly family income < NT 50,000 NT 50,000?9,999 NT 90,000?79,999 NT 180,000 Missing Education High school graduates Some college College graduates Marital status Others Married Locality Urban Suburban Rural Self-rated health Poor Good Perceived susceptibility Low High Perceived severity Low High Bonding social capital Neighborhood support Bridging social capital Association membership No Yes Linking Social Capital General government trust Trust in government's capacity to handle an influenza pandemic 1.45 (1.13?.83)** 0.92 (0.72?.20) 1.45 (1.11?.89)** 0.83 (0.63?.11) 1 1.21 (0.79?.84) 1 0.97 (0.62?.52) 1.50 (1.22?.83)** 1.43 (1.15?.78)** 1 1.82 (1.07?.11)* 1 1.62 (0.92?.85) 1 2.93 (1.35?.39)* 1 2.93 (1.33?.45)** 1 0.96 (0.63?.46) 1 0.90 (0.58?.41) 1 0.53 (0.35?.82)* 1.02 (0.48?.14) 1 0.54 (0.34?.84)* 0.98 (0.45?.12) 1 1.65 (1.09?.48)* 1 1.18 (0.71?.97) 1 1.51 (0.86?.65) 1.29 (0.80?.08) 1 1.72 (0.88?.37) 1.70 (0.88?.28) 1 1.11 (0.64?.95) 1.17 (0.63?.14) 0.92 (0.52?.62) 2.72 (0.63?1.67) 1 0.95 (0.52?.75) 0.99 (0.51?.94) 0.87 (0.48?.58) 2.66 (0.59?2.02) 1 2.06 (1.19?.59)** 2.47 (1.39?.38)** 1.20 (0.68?.12) 1 1.92 (1.01?.65) 2.34 (1.11?.92) 1.35 (0.61?.01) 1 0.78 (0.52?.19) 1 0.75 (0.49?.16) OR (95 CI)a AOR (95 CI)b*p <. 05. **p <. 01.aCrude Odds Ratios. Adjusted Odds Ratios controlling all of the other variables.bdoi:10.1371/journal.pone.0122970.tPLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0122970 April 15,10 /Social Capital and Behavioral Intentions in an Influenza Pandemicawareness about the disease through social networks, as well as by promoting discussion and problem solving regarding feasible actions [32]. In addition, peer pressure or moral responsibility, as derived from the solidarity of local social networks, may drive people to implement health measures to prevent the spread of the disease. Some researchers have suggested that increasing community-level social capital is especially recommended in disaster preparedness becaus.
