OBJECTIVE: Numerous institutional facilitators and barriers to preparedness planning exist at the local level for vulnerable and at-risk populations. Findings of this evaluation study contribute to ongoing practice-based efforts to improve response services and address public health preparedness planning and training as they relate to vulnerable and at-risk populations. METHODS: From January 2012 through June 2013, we conducted a multilevel, mixed-methods evaluation study of the North Carolina Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center's Vulnerable & At-Risk Populations Resource Guide, an online tool to aid local health departments' (LHDs') preparedness planning efforts. We examined planning practices across multiple local, regional, and state jurisdictions utilizing user data, follow-up surveys, and secondary data. To identify potential incongruities in planning, we compared respondents' reported populations of interest with corresponding census data to determine whether or not there were differences in planning priorities. RESULTS: We used data collected from evaluation surveys to identify key institutional facilitators and barriers associated with planning for at-risk populations, including challenges to conducting assessments and lack of resources. Results identified both barriers within institutional culture and disconnects between planning priorities and evidence-based identification of vulnerable and at-risk populations, including variation in the planning process, partnerships, and perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the important role of LHDs in preparedness planning and the potential implications associated with organizational and bureaucratic impediments to planning implementation. A more in-depth understanding of the relationships among public institutions and the levels of preparedness that contribute to the conditions and processes that generate vulnerability is needed.
OBJECTIVE: Numerous institutional facilitators and barriers to preparedness planning exist at the local level for vulnerable and at-risk populations. Findings of this evaluation study contribute to ongoing practice-based efforts to improve response services and address public health preparedness planning and training as they relate to vulnerable and at-risk populations. METHODS: From January 2012 through June 2013, we conducted a multilevel, mixed-methods evaluation study of the North Carolina Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center's Vulnerable & At-Risk Populations Resource Guide, an online tool to aid local health departments' (LHDs') preparedness planning efforts. We examined planning practices across multiple local, regional, and state jurisdictions utilizing user data, follow-up surveys, and secondary data. To identify potential incongruities in planning, we compared respondents' reported populations of interest with corresponding census data to determine whether or not there were differences in planning priorities. RESULTS: We used data collected from evaluation surveys to identify key institutional facilitators and barriers associated with planning for at-risk populations, including challenges to conducting assessments and lack of resources. Results identified both barriers within institutional culture and disconnects between planning priorities and evidence-based identification of vulnerable and at-risk populations, including variation in the planning process, partnerships, and perceptions. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the important role of LHDs in preparedness planning and the potential implications associated with organizational and bureaucratic impediments to planning implementation. A more in-depth understanding of the relationships among public institutions and the levels of preparedness that contribute to the conditions and processes that generate vulnerability is needed.
Authors: Jennifer A Horney; Milissa Markiewicz; Anne Marie Meyer; Julie Casani; Jennifer Hegle; Pia D M MacDonald Journal: Am J Disaster Med Date: 2011 Mar-Apr
Authors: Jennifer Hegle; Milissa Markiewicz; Philip Benson; Jennifer Horney; Richard Rosselli; Pia MacDonald Journal: Biosecur Bioterror Date: 2011-03-01
Authors: Marvin So; Eric J Dziuban; Jessica L Franks; Karen Cobham-Owens; David J Schonfeld; Aaron H Gardner; Steven E Krug; Georgina Peacock; Sarita Chung Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2019-05-16 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: John Kinsman; John Angrén; Fredrik Elgh; Maria Furberg; Paola A Mosquera; Laura Otero-García; René Snacken; Tarik Derrough; Paloma Carrillo Santisteve; Massimo Ciotti; Svetla Tsolova Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-07-06 Impact factor: 2.655