Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part III: Framework for the Temporal Phases of Disasters

Emergency Relief Chain for Natural Disaster Response Based on Government-Enterprise Coordination

Public health and effective risk response cannot be promoted without a coordinated emergency process during a natural disaster. One primary problem with the emergency relief chain is the homogeneous layout of rescue organizations and reserves. There is a need for government-enterprise coordination to enhance the systemic resilience and demand orientation. Therefore, a bi-level multi-phase emergency plan model involving procurement, prepositioning and allocation is proposed. The tradeoff of efficiency, economy and fairness is offered through the multi-objective cellular genetic algorithm (MOCGA). The flood emergency in Hunan Province, China is used as a case study. The impact of multi-objective and coordination mechanisms on the relief chain is discussed. The results show that there is a significant boundary condition for the coordinated location strategy of emergency facilities and that further government coordination over the transition phase can generate optimal relief benefits. Demand orientation is addressed by the proposed model and MOCGA, with the realization of the process coordination in multiple reserves, optimal layout, and transition allocation. The emergency relief chain based on government-enterprise coordination that adapts to the evolution of disasters can provide positive actions for integrated precaution and health security.

Rapid Transitions: Experiences with Accessibility and Special Education during the COVID-19 Crisis

The ongoing outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) and the ensuing preventative lock-down and shelter-in-place policies enacted around the world have caused unanticipated disruptions in the delivery of educational content and accessibility services to children, youth and adults with disabilities. The rapid move to online and remote learning, socialization, and therapeutic activities have surfaced some of the inadequacies of existing systems and infrastructures as well as opportunities for creating novel and accessible solutions. We conducted semi-structured remote interviews with nine special education teachers, therapists, community advocates, and individuals with disabilities to capture their perspectives on delivering services and supporting children and adults with disabilities and their families during the pandemic. Participants shared reflections on their experience and those who they serve during the initial phases of the COVID-19 crisis and the challenges and insights that this experience surfaced. Findings include a need to better support families in facilitating remote learning experiences for their children, developing tactile modes of engagement to complement online interactions, and the impact of a lack of contingency plans specifically to support people with disabilities and their families during crizes. The participants also described the lack of clarity about the future as one of the most difficult aspects of the pandemic. We conclude with a discussion of these findings and directions for future research.

Can a 'second disaster' during and after the COVID-19 pandemic be mitigated?

In most disasters that have been studied, the underlying dangerous cause does not persist for very long. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic a progressively emerging life threat remains, exposing everyone to varying levels of risk of contracting the illness, dying, or infecting others. Distancing and avoiding company have a great impact on social life. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has an enormous economic impact for many losing work and income, which is even affecting basic needs such as access to food and housing. In addition, loss of loved ones may compound the effects of fear and loss of resources. The aim of this paper is to distil, from a range of published literature, lessons from past disasters to assist in mitigating adverse psychosocial reactions to the COVID-19 pandemic. European, American, and Asian studies of disasters show that long-term social and psychological consequences of disasters may compromise initial solidarity. Psychosocial disruptions, practical and financial problems, and complex community and political issues may then result in a 'second disaster'. Lessons from past disasters suggest that communities and their leaders, as well as mental healthcare providers, need to pay attention to fear regarding the ongoing threat, as well as sadness and grief, and to provide hope to mitigate social disruption.

Health Outcomes After Disaster for Older Adults With Chronic Disease: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This review synthesizes the current literature surrounding chronic disease outcomes after weather- and climate-related disasters among older adults. The associations between exposure of older adults to weather- and climate-related disasters and the primary outcomes of diabetes, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), congestive heart failure (CHF), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were examined.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A systematic review of studies reporting on clinical outcomes of four chronic diseases after disaster exposure was performed. Under the direction of an informationist, the databases PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, and Web of Science (Science and Social Science Citation Index) were searched from inception to July 2019.

RESULTS

Of 5,229 citations identified, 17 articles met the study criteria. Included articles were retrospective observational in nature and focused on earthquakes (24%, n = 4), hurricane (41%, n = 7), and wildfire (35%, n = 6) disasters. Outcome data by disease process included COPD (35%, n = 6), ESRD (41%, n = 7), CHF (24%, n = 4), and diabetes (29%, n = 5). Three main categories were identified: access to health care, postdisaster health care utilization, and study rigor. The age-stratified analyses reported in this review found multiple instances where disasters have limited or insignificant effects on older adults relative to younger populations.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Disaster research faces unique methodological challenges, and there remains a need for data-driven conclusions on how best to care for older adults before, during, and after disasters. To encourage consistent dialogue among studies, we advocate for the use of rigorous and standardized scientific methodology to examine the health impacts of disasters on adults with chronic disease.

Stress, Coping, Resilience and Trust during the Flint Water Crisis

In 2014, government officials in the City of Flint, Michigan switched the municipal water source from the Detroit Water System (water source: Lake Huron) to the Flint River. During this time, an estimated 102,000 Flint residents were potentially exposed to multiple chemical (e.g., lead) and biological threats (e.g., Legionella). After the switch to water sourced from the Flint River, Flint residents consistently reported concerns over water quality while also experiencing rashes, hair loss, and other health problems, including anxiety and depression. This study 1) reports on the Flint Water Crisis and its subsequent impact on residents' stress, coping, resilience and trust and 2) describes a process methodology that trained, hired and deployed Flint residents as members of a multidisciplinary research team. A random sample of 320 Flint residents underwent household-based interviews to assess their health and mental health needs. Concomitantly, household water samples were obtained and residents were connected to known resources based on interview responses relative to need. This study found that declines in health and mental health status were correlated with increased stressors (i.e., fatigue, financial concern, anxiety), coping and less resilience or the capacity to recover. Perceived trust in government officials was significantly lower after the water crisis. While the water crisis generated numerous stressors, the event also galvanized community competence to engage in solution-focused coping and other adaptive capacities. By assessing and building upon Flint residents' resilience, community resource specialists, identified and subsequently strengthened city residents' ability to survive devastating challenges.

Peer-Reviewed Validation of a Comprehensive Framework for Disaster Evaluation Typologies

INTRODUCTION

The Comprehensive Framework for Disaster Evaluation Typologies, developed in 2017 (CFDET 2017), aims to unify and facilitate agreement regarding the identification, structure, and relationships between various evaluation typologies found in the disaster setting. A peer-reviewed validation process sought input from international experts in the fields of disaster medicine, disaster/emergency management, humanitarian/development, and evaluation. This paper discusses the validation process, its results, and outcomes.Research Problem:Previous frameworks, identified in the literature, lack validation and consistent terminology. To gain credibility and utility, this unique framework needed to be validated by international experts in the disaster setting.

METHODS

A mixed methods approach was designed to validate the framework. An initial iterative process informed an online survey which used a combination of a five-point Likert scale and open-ended questions. Pre-determined consensus thresholds, informed by a targeted literature review, provided the validation criteria.

RESULTS

A sample of 33 experts from 11 countries responded to the validation process. Quantitative measures largely supported the elements and relationships of the framework, and strongly supported its value and usefulness for supporting, promoting, and undertaking evaluations, as well as its usefulness for teaching evaluation in the disaster setting. Qualitative input suggested opportunities to strengthen and enhance the framework. There were limited responses to better understand the barriers and enablers of undertaking disaster evaluations. A potential for self-selection bias of respondents may be a limitation of this study. The attainment of high consensus thresholds, however, provides confidence in the validity of the results.

CONCLUSION

For the first time, a framework of this nature has undergone a rigorous validation process by experts in three related disciplines at an international level. The modified framework, CFDET 2018, provides a unifying framework within which existing evaluation typologies can be structured. It gives evaluators confidence to choose an appropriate strategy for their particular evaluation in the disaster setting and facilitates consistency in reporting across the different phases of a disaster to better understand the process, outcomes, and impacts of the efficacy and efficiency of interventions. Future research could create a series of toolkits to support improved disaster evaluation processes and to evaluate the utility of the framework in the real-world setting.

Improving Management of Limb Injuries in Disasters and Conflicts

It has become clear that disaster relief needs to transition from good intentions or a charity-based approach to a professional, outcome-oriented response. The practice of medicine in disaster and conflict is a profession practiced in environments where lack of resources, chaos, and unpredictability are the norm rather than the exception. With this consideration in mind, the World Health Organization (WHO; Geneva, Switzerland) and its partners set out to improve the disaster response systems. The resulting Emergency Medical Team (EMT) classification system requires that teams planning on engaging in disaster response follow common standards for the delivery of care in resource-constraint environments. In order to clarify these standards, the WHO EMT Secretariat collaborated with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC; Geneva, Switzerland) and leading experts from other stakeholder non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to produce a guide to the management of limb injuries in disaster and conflict.The resulting text is a free and open-access resource to provide guidance for national and international EMTs caring for patients in disasters and conflicts. The content is a result of expert consensus, literature review, and an iterative process designed to encourage debate and resolution of existing open questions within the field of disaster and conflict medical response.The end result of this process is a text providing guidance to providers seeking to deliver safe, effective care within the EMT framework that is now part of the EMT training and verification system and is being distributed to ICRC teams deploying to the field.This work seeks to encourage professionalization of the field of disaster and conflict response, and to contribute to the existing EMT framework, in order to provide for better care for future victims of disaster and conflict.Jensen G, Bar-On E, Wiedler JT, Hautz SC, Veen H, Kay AR, Norton I, Gosselin RA, von Schreeb J. Improving management of limb injuries in disasters and conflicts. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(3):330-334.

Monitoring and evaluation of disaster response efforts undertaken by local health departments: a rapid realist review

Background

Local health departments are often at the forefront of a disaster response, attending to the immediate trauma inflicted by the disaster and also the long term health consequences. As the frequency and severity of disasters are projected to rise, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) efforts are critical to help local health departments consolidate past experiences and improve future response efforts. Local health departments often conduct M&E work post disaster, however, many of these efforts fail to improve response procedures.

Methods

We undertook a rapid realist review (RRR) to examine why M&E efforts undertaken by local health departments do not always result in improved disaster response efforts. We aimed to complement existing frameworks by focusing on the most basic and pragmatic steps of a M&E cycle targeted towards continuous system improvements. For these purposes, we developed a theoretical framework that draws on the quality improvement literature to ‘frame’ the steps in the M&E cycle. This framework encompassed a M&E cycle involving three stages (i.e., document and assess, disseminate and implement) that must be sequentially completed to learn from past experiences and improve future disaster response efforts. We used this framework to guide our examination of the literature and to identify any context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations which describe how M&E may be constrained or enabled at each stage of the M&E cycle.

Results

This RRR found a number of explanatory CMO configurations that provide valuable insights into some of the considerations that should be made when using M&E to improve future disaster response efforts. Firstly, to support the accurate documentation and assessment of a disaster response, local health departments should consider how they can: establish a culture of learning within health departments; use embedded training methods; or facilitate external partnerships. Secondly, to enhance the widespread dissemination of lessons learned and facilitate inter-agency learning, evaluation reports should use standardised formats and terminology. Lastly, to increase commitment to improvement processes, local health department leaders should possess positive leadership attributes and encourage shared decision making.

Conclusion

This study is among the first to conduct a synthesis of the CMO configurations which facilitate or hinder M&E efforts aimed at improving future disaster responses. It makes a significant contribution to the disaster literature and provides an evidence base that can be used to provide pragmatic guidance for improving M&E efforts of local health departments.

Trial registration

PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015023526.

Categorization and Analysis of Disaster Health Publications: An Inventory

Disaster Medicine is a relatively new discipline. Understanding of the current status of its science is needed in order to develop a roadmap for the direction and structure of future studies that will contribute to building the science of the health aspects of disasters (HADs). The objective of this study was to examine the existing, peer-reviewed literature relevant to the HADs to determine the status of the currently available literature underlying the science of the HADs. A total of 709 consecutive, peer-reviewed articles published from 2009-2014 in two disaster-health-related medical journals, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine (PDM) and Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness (DMPHP), were examined. Of these, 495 were disaster-related (PDM, 248; DMPHP, 247). Three major categories defined these disaster-related research articles: (1) Epidemiological studies comprised 50.5%; (2) Interventional, 20.3%; and (3) Syntheses, 26.9%. Interventional studies were sub-categorized into: (a) Relief Responses, 23.0%; (b) Recovery Responses, 2.0%; or (c) Risk-Reduction Interventions, 75.0%. Basically, the inventories were consistent within the two journals. Reported indicators of outcomes related to the responses were constrained to achievement indicators (numbers accomplished). Syntheses articles were sub-categorized into: (a) Literature Reviews, 17.6%; (b) Opinions, 25.2%; (c) Models, 24.4%; (d) Frameworks, 6.9%; (e) Guidelines, 13.0%; (f) Tools, 3.0%; (g) Protocols, Policies, or Criteria, 2.3%; or (h) Conference Summaries, 7.6%. Trend analyses indicated that the relative proportions of articles in each category and sub-category remained relatively constant over the five years. No randomized controlled trials (RTCs), non-randomized, comparative controlled trials (CCTs), or systematic reviews were published in these journals during the period examined. Each article also was examined qualitatively for objectives, study type, content, language, and structure. There was no common structure used for any category or sub-categories. In addition, the terminology used was inconsistent and often confusing. This categorization process should be applied to other peer-reviewed journals that publish research related to HADs. As evidenced in the current study, the evidence base for HADs is far from robust and is disorganized, making the development of scientific evidence on which to base best practices difficult. A stronger evidence base is needed to develop the science associated with the HADs. This will require a common structure and terminology to facilitate comparisons. Greater depth of reporting is needed in order to render the Epidemiological studies more useful in mitigating the negative health impacts of hazard-related events. Interventional studies must be structured and include outcomes, impacts, benefits, and costs with robust indicators. The outcomes and impacts of Risk-Reduction Interventions will require the evaluation of changes in the epidemiology documented in future events or exercises. Birnbaum ML , Adibhatla S , Dudek O , Ramsel-Miller J . Categorization and analysis of disaster health publications: an inventory. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):473-482 .

Disaster Metrics: A Comprehensive Framework for Disaster Evaluation Typologies

Introduction The frequency of disasters is increasing around the world with more people being at risk. There is a moral imperative to improve the way in which disaster evaluations are undertaken and reported with the aim of reducing preventable mortality and morbidity in future events. Disasters are complex events and undertaking disaster evaluations is a specialized area of study at an international level. Hypothesis/Problem While some frameworks have been developed to support consistent disaster research and evaluation, they lack validation, consistent terminology, and standards for reporting across the different phases of a disaster. There is yet to be an agreed, comprehensive framework to structure disaster evaluation typologies. The aim of this paper is to outline an evolving comprehensive framework for disaster evaluation typologies. It is anticipated that this new framework will facilitate an agreement on identifying, structuring, and relating the various evaluations found in the disaster setting with a view to better understand the process, outcomes, and impacts of the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions.

METHODS

Research was undertaken in two phases: (1) a scoping literature review (peer-reviewed and "grey literature") was undertaken to identify current evaluation frameworks and typologies used in the disaster setting; and (2) a structure was developed that included the range of typologies identified in Phase One and suggests possible relationships in the disaster setting.

RESULTS

No core, unifying framework to structure disaster evaluation and research was identified in the literature. The authors propose a "Comprehensive Framework for Disaster Evaluation Typologies" that identifies, structures, and suggests relationships for the various typologies detected.

CONCLUSION

The proposed Comprehensive Framework for Disaster Evaluation Typologies outlines the different typologies of disaster evaluations that were identified in this study and brings them together into a single framework. This unique, unifying framework has relevance at an international level and is expected to benefit the disaster, humanitarian, and development sectors. The next step is to undertake a validation process that will include international leaders with experience in evaluation, in general, and disasters specifically. This work promotes an environment for constructive dialogue on evaluations in the disaster setting to strengthen the evidence base for interventions across the disaster spectrum. It remains a work in progress. Wong DF , Spencer C , Boyd L , Burkle FM Jr. , Archer F . Disaster metrics: a comprehensive framework for disaster evaluation typologies. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(5):501-514.

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part III: Framework for the Temporal Phases of Disasters

Each of the elements described in the Conceptual Framework for disasters has a temporal designation; each has a beginning and end time. The Temporal Framework defines these elements as phases that are based on characteristics rather than on absolute times. The six temporal phases include the: (1) Pre-event; (2) Event; (3) Structural Damage; (4) Functional Damage (changes in levels of functions of the Societal Systems); (5) Relief; and (6) Recovery phases. Development is not a phase of a disaster. The use of the Temporal Framework in studying and reporting disasters allows comparisons to be made between similar phases of different disasters, regardless of the hazard involved and/or the community impacted. For research and evaluation purposes, assessments, plans, and interventions must be described in relation to the appropriate temporal phase.