Lorna E Thorpe1, Shervin Assari2, Stephen Deppen3, Sherry Glied4, Nicole Lurie5, Matthew P Mauer6, Vickie M Mays7, Edward Trapido8. 1. Epidemiology and Biostatistics Program, City University of New York School of Public Health, NY. Electronic address: lthor@hunter.cuny.edu. 2. Health Behavior and Health Education Program, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN. 4. School of Public Service, Wagner School of Public Service, New York University, NY. 5. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Albany School of Public Health, State University of New York, Albany. 7. Department of Psychology, School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles. 8. Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Louisiana State University, New Orleans.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Disasters expose the general population and responders to a range of potential contaminants and stressors which may harm physical and mental health. This article addresses the role of epidemiology in informing policies after a disaster to mitigate ongoing exposures, provide care and compensation, and improve preparedness for future disasters. METHODS: The World Trade Center disaster response is used as a case study. We examine how epidemiologic evidence was used to shape postdisaster policy and identify important gaps in early research. RESULTS: In the wake of World Trade Center attacks, epidemiologic research played a key role in identifying and characterizing affected populations, assessing environmental exposures, quantifying physical and mental health impacts, and producing evidence to ascribe causation. However, most studies suffered from methodological challenges, including delays, selection biases, poor exposure measurement, and nonstandardized outcomes. Gaps included measuring unmet health needs and financing coverage, as well as coordination across longitudinal cohorts of studies for rare conditions with long latency, such as cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiologists can increase their impact on evidence-based policymaking by ensuring core mechanisms are in place before a disaster to mount monitoring of responders and other affected populations, improve early exposure assessment efforts, identify critical gaps in scientific knowledge, and coordinate communication of scientific findings to policymakers and the public.
PURPOSE: Disasters expose the general population and responders to a range of potential contaminants and stressors which may harm physical and mental health. This article addresses the role of epidemiology in informing policies after a disaster to mitigate ongoing exposures, provide care and compensation, and improve preparedness for future disasters. METHODS: The World Trade Center disaster response is used as a case study. We examine how epidemiologic evidence was used to shape postdisaster policy and identify important gaps in early research. RESULTS: In the wake of World Trade Center attacks, epidemiologic research played a key role in identifying and characterizing affected populations, assessing environmental exposures, quantifying physical and mental health impacts, and producing evidence to ascribe causation. However, most studies suffered from methodological challenges, including delays, selection biases, poor exposure measurement, and nonstandardized outcomes. Gaps included measuring unmet health needs and financing coverage, as well as coordination across longitudinal cohorts of studies for rare conditions with long latency, such as cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Epidemiologists can increase their impact on evidence-based policymaking by ensuring core mechanisms are in place before a disaster to mount monitoring of responders and other affected populations, improve early exposure assessment efforts, identify critical gaps in scientific knowledge, and coordinate communication of scientific findings to policymakers and the public.
Authors: Stephen M Friedman; Mark R Farfel; Carey B Maslow; James E Cone; Robert M Brackbill; Steven D Stellman Journal: Am J Ind Med Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 2.214
Authors: Mayris P Webber; Jackson Gustave; Roy Lee; Justin K Niles; Kerry Kelly; Hillel W Cohen; David J Prezant Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2009-02-11 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Robin Herbert; Jacqueline Moline; Gwen Skloot; Kristina Metzger; Sherry Baron; Benjamin Luft; Steven Markowitz; Iris Udasin; Denise Harrison; Diane Stein; Andrew Todd; Paul Enright; Jeanne Mager Stellman; Philip J Landrigan; Stephen M Levin Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Mark Farfel; Laura DiGrande; Robert Brackbill; Angela Prann; James Cone; Stephen Friedman; Deborah J Walker; Grant Pezeshki; Pauline Thomas; Sandro Galea; David Williamson; Thomas R Frieden; Lorna Thorpe Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2008-09-11 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Julie Von Behren; Michelle Wong; Daniela Morales; Peggy Reynolds; Paul B English; Gina Solomon Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: William Mueller; Hilary Cowie; Claire J Horwell; Peter J Baxter; Damien McElvenny; Mark Booth; John W Cherrie; Paul Cullinan; Deborah Jarvis; Ciro Ugarte; Hiromasa Inoue Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 9.408