Intended for healthcare professionals

Papers

Psychosocial effects of the 2001 UK foot and mouth disease epidemic in a rural population: qualitative diary based study

BMJ 2005; 331 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38603.375856.68 (Published 24 November 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:1234
  1. Maggie Mort, senior lecturer (m.mort{at}lancaster.ac.uk)1,
  2. Ian Convery, lecturer in human geography2,
  3. Josephine Baxter, research associate1,
  4. Cathy Bailey, research officer3
  1. 1 Institute for Health Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YT
  2. 2 University of Central Lancashire
  3. 3 International Centre for the Uplands, Lancaster University
  1. Correspondence to: M Mort
  • Accepted 11 August 2005

Abstract

Objectives To understand the health and social consequences of the 2001 foot and mouth disease epidemic for a rural population.

Design Longitudinal qualitative analysis.

Setting North Cumbria, the worst affected area in Britain.

Sample Purposive sample of 54 respondents divided in six demographically balanced rural occupational and population groups.

Main outcome measures 3071 weekly diaries contributed over 18 months; 72 semistructured interviews (with the 54 diarists and 18 others); 12 group discussions with diarists

Results The disease epidemic was a human tragedy, not just an animal one. Respondents' reports showed that life after the foot and mouth disease epidemic was accompanied by distress, feelings of bereavement, fear of a new disaster, loss of trust in authority and systems of control, and the undermining of the value of local knowledge. Distress was experienced across diverse groups well beyond the farming community. Many of these effects continued to feature in the diaries throughout the 18 month period.

Conclusions The use of a rural citizens' panel allowed data capture from a wide spectrum of the rural population and showed that a greater number of workers and residents had traumatic experiences than has previously been reported. Recommendations for future disaster management include joint service reviews of what counts as a disaster, regular NHS and voluntary sector sharing of intelligence, debriefing and peer support for front line workers, increased community involvement in disposal site or disaster management, and wider, more flexible access to regeneration funding and rural health outreach work.

Footnotes

  • Embedded Image Details of the study's multi-agency steering group, respondents, and development of the major analytical themes appear on bmj.com

  • Contributors MM and IC conceived and designed the study; CB, IC, and JB led the fieldwork, and all authors contributed to the analysis. MM and IC drafted the paper and all authors contributed to revision and approved final version. MM is study guarantor.

  • Funding This study was undertaken by the Institute for Health Research, Lancaster University, which received funding from the Department of Health. The views expressed in the study are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Health.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethical approval The study was approved by both East and West Cumbria Local Research Ethics Committees.

  • Accepted 11 August 2005
View Full Text