O Lee McCabe1, Natalie L Semon2, Jeffrey M Lating3, George S Everly4, Charlene J Perry5, Suzanne Straub Moore6, Adrian M Mosley7, Carol B Thompson8, Jonathan M Links2. 1. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Mental Health, Baltimore, MD ; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center, Baltimore, MD ; Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baltimore, MD. 2. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center, Baltimore, MD ; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Center, Baltimore, MD ; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Baltimore, MD. 3. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Baltimore, MD ; Loyola University Maryland, Department of Psychology, Baltimore, MD. 4. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Baltimore, MD ; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Center, Baltimore, MD ; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of International Health, Baltimore, MD. 5. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Kent County Health Department, Chestertown, MD. 6. Episcopal Diocese of Easton, Shrewsbury Parish, Easton, MD. 7. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Office of Community Health, Baltimore, MD. 8. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins Biostatistics Center, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Faculty and affiliates of the Johns Hopkins Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center partnered with local health departments and faith-based organizations to develop a dual-intervention model of capacity-building for public mental health preparedness and community resilience. Project objectives included (1) determining the feasibility of the tri-partite collaborative concept; (2) designing, delivering, and evaluating psychological first aid (PFA) training and guided preparedness planning (GPP); and (3) documenting preliminary evidence of the sustainability and impact of the model. METHODS: We evaluated intervention effectiveness by analyzing pre- and post-training changes in participant responses on knowledge-acquisition tests administered to three urban and four rural community cohorts. Changes in percent of correct items and mean total correct items were evaluated. Criteria for model sustainability and impact were, respectively, observations of nonacademic partners engaging in efforts to advance post-project preparedness alliances, and project-attributable changes in preparedness-related practices of local or state governments. RESULTS: The majority (11 of 14) test items addressing technical or practical PFA content showed significant improvement; we observed comparable testing results for GPP training. Government and faith partners developed ideas and tools for sustaining preparedness activities, and numerous project-driven changes in local and state government policies were documented. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the model could be an effective approach to promoting public health preparedness and community resilience.
OBJECTIVES: Faculty and affiliates of the Johns Hopkins Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center partnered with local health departments and faith-based organizations to develop a dual-intervention model of capacity-building for public mental health preparedness and community resilience. Project objectives included (1) determining the feasibility of the tri-partite collaborative concept; (2) designing, delivering, and evaluating psychological first aid (PFA) training and guided preparedness planning (GPP); and (3) documenting preliminary evidence of the sustainability and impact of the model. METHODS: We evaluated intervention effectiveness by analyzing pre- and post-training changes in participant responses on knowledge-acquisition tests administered to three urban and four rural community cohorts. Changes in percent of correct items and mean total correct items were evaluated. Criteria for model sustainability and impact were, respectively, observations of nonacademic partners engaging in efforts to advance post-project preparedness alliances, and project-attributable changes in preparedness-related practices of local or state governments. RESULTS: The majority (11 of 14) test items addressing technical or practical PFA content showed significant improvement; we observed comparable testing results for GPP training. Government and faith partners developed ideas and tools for sustaining preparedness activities, and numerous project-driven changes in local and state government policies were documented. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the model could be an effective approach to promoting public health preparedness and community resilience.
Authors: O Lee McCabe; Natalie L Semon; Carol B Thompson; Jeffrey M Lating; George S Everly; Charlene J Perry; Suzanne Straub Moore; Adrian M Mosley; Jonathan M Links Journal: Disaster Med Public Health Prep Date: 2014-12-08 Impact factor: 1.385
Authors: O Lee McCabe; Charlene Perry; Melissa Azur; Henry G Taylor; Howard Gwon; Adrian Mosley; Natalie Semon; Jonathan M Links Journal: Prehosp Disaster Med Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 2.040
Authors: William E Schlenger; Juesta M Caddell; Lori Ebert; B Kathleen Jordan; Kathryn M Rourke; David Wilson; Lisa Thalji; J Michael Dennis; John A Fairbank; Richard A Kulka Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-08-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Eric S Toner; Meghan McGinty; Monica Schoch-Spana; Dale A Rose; Matthew Watson; Erin Echols; Eric G Carbone Journal: Health Secur Date: 2017 Jan/Feb