OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe the key communication and health protection issues surrounding a flooding emergency. METHODS: A telephone questionnaire was used to assess health and safety information sources, information recalled, and behavioral responses among residents of the town of Feilding, New Zealand following a major flood in February 2004. This was supplemented by key informant interviews and a newspaper content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 154 adult residents were surveyed (76% of those successfully contacted and eligible). Of the respondents, 79% recalled being provided with health and safety information from authorities. The major sources were: radio (41%), pamphlets (23%), and newspapers (20%). The regional newspaper had extensive coverage of this flooding emergency but "health" only was mentioned in 46 (7%) of the 664 flood-related articles. Of those who recalled receiving information from authorities, most (89%) perceived that it was adequate. Nevertheless, 18% actively sought out information (mainly about water safety and availability). In the post-flood period, 73% of all respondents boiled water; however, only 4% maintained boiling water or bottled water use for the necessary nine-week period. Some forms of emergency preparations did not change substantially from before the flood, compared to four months afterwards (e.g., having a radio with batteries increased from 62% to 68%). Perceived health concerns around the flooding were low, though 59% were concerned about the risk of water contamination. Actual self-reported, health consequences from the flood were rare, as only two (1%) people out of 154 reported flood-related health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Health and safety information generally was communicated successfully and was regarded as appropriate by the population of this flood-affected town. Nevertheless, there are further improvements needed in the emergency response by both residents and authorities.
OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe the key communication and health protection issues surrounding a flooding emergency. METHODS: A telephone questionnaire was used to assess health and safety information sources, information recalled, and behavioral responses among residents of the town of Feilding, New Zealand following a major flood in February 2004. This was supplemented by key informant interviews and a newspaper content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 154 adult residents were surveyed (76% of those successfully contacted and eligible). Of the respondents, 79% recalled being provided with health and safety information from authorities. The major sources were: radio (41%), pamphlets (23%), and newspapers (20%). The regional newspaper had extensive coverage of this flooding emergency but "health" only was mentioned in 46 (7%) of the 664 flood-related articles. Of those who recalled receiving information from authorities, most (89%) perceived that it was adequate. Nevertheless, 18% actively sought out information (mainly about water safety and availability). In the post-flood period, 73% of all respondents boiled water; however, only 4% maintained boiling water or bottled water use for the necessary nine-week period. Some forms of emergency preparations did not change substantially from before the flood, compared to four months afterwards (e.g., having a radio with batteries increased from 62% to 68%). Perceived health concerns around the flooding were low, though 59% were concerned about the risk of water contamination. Actual self-reported, health consequences from the flood were rare, as only two (1%) people out of 154 reported flood-related health problems. CONCLUSIONS: Health and safety information generally was communicated successfully and was regarded as appropriate by the population of this flood-affected town. Nevertheless, there are further improvements needed in the emergency response by both residents and authorities.
Authors: José Miguel Carrasco; Virginia Lope; Beatriz Pérez-Gómez; Nuria Aragonés; Berta Suárez; Gonzalo López-Abente; Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo; Marina Pollán Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2006-01-03 Impact factor: 3.295