Cargando…

Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study

BACKGROUND: In order to elicit the knowledge, experience, and attitudes of individuals involved in disaster response with regard to evidence-based best practices, Evidence Aid and its institutional partners, Georgetown University and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, carried...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jillson, Irene Anne, Clarke, Michael, Allen, Claire, Waller, Stephen, Koehlmoos, Tracey, Mumford, William, Jansen, Jeroen, McKay, Keith, Trant, Alexandra
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6498534/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31046763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4102-5
_version_ 1783415629973291008
author Jillson, Irene Anne
Clarke, Michael
Allen, Claire
Waller, Stephen
Koehlmoos, Tracey
Mumford, William
Jansen, Jeroen
McKay, Keith
Trant, Alexandra
author_facet Jillson, Irene Anne
Clarke, Michael
Allen, Claire
Waller, Stephen
Koehlmoos, Tracey
Mumford, William
Jansen, Jeroen
McKay, Keith
Trant, Alexandra
author_sort Jillson, Irene Anne
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In order to elicit the knowledge, experience, and attitudes of individuals involved in disaster response with regard to evidence-based best practices, Evidence Aid and its institutional partners, Georgetown University and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, carried out a Policy Delphi study in 2015–2016. METHODS: Purposive and snowball methods were used to select study participants. The Delphi study comprised two rounds of iterative questions, with the questionnaires completed online. In addition, participants at the Evidence Aid conference in November 2016 discussed the findings in focus groups. Excel was used to analyze the quantitative data and Glaser and Strauss (1967) to analyze the qualitative data. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants responded to the first round of the study, 165 responded to the second round, and 30 participated in the focus group discussions. The salient findings include 1) ensuring that all key stakeholders are engaged in planning for and responding to disasters in a collaborative, coordinated manner—including local community members; 2) using, insofar as possible, evidence-based responses; 3) increasing and strengthening research to ensure that such data are available; and 4) addressing ethical, legal and social issues throughout the planning, immediate response, and post-disaster periods. CONCLUSIONS: Recent humanitarian disasters, due to natural and man-made hazards or a combination of the two, reinforce the need for more effective, efficient, humane responses at the local, national and international levels. This study has yielded findings that can be used to strengthen planning and response by taking into account, where possible, evidence based on research that has been carried out with the engagement of community members and with support by key stakeholders. The most effective means of facilitating the development and implementation of consistent, coordinated policies and practices might be for the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction to take the lead in engaging key organizations in the required discussions and collaborations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4102-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6498534
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64985342019-05-09 Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study Jillson, Irene Anne Clarke, Michael Allen, Claire Waller, Stephen Koehlmoos, Tracey Mumford, William Jansen, Jeroen McKay, Keith Trant, Alexandra BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: In order to elicit the knowledge, experience, and attitudes of individuals involved in disaster response with regard to evidence-based best practices, Evidence Aid and its institutional partners, Georgetown University and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, carried out a Policy Delphi study in 2015–2016. METHODS: Purposive and snowball methods were used to select study participants. The Delphi study comprised two rounds of iterative questions, with the questionnaires completed online. In addition, participants at the Evidence Aid conference in November 2016 discussed the findings in focus groups. Excel was used to analyze the quantitative data and Glaser and Strauss (1967) to analyze the qualitative data. RESULTS: Thirty-six participants responded to the first round of the study, 165 responded to the second round, and 30 participated in the focus group discussions. The salient findings include 1) ensuring that all key stakeholders are engaged in planning for and responding to disasters in a collaborative, coordinated manner—including local community members; 2) using, insofar as possible, evidence-based responses; 3) increasing and strengthening research to ensure that such data are available; and 4) addressing ethical, legal and social issues throughout the planning, immediate response, and post-disaster periods. CONCLUSIONS: Recent humanitarian disasters, due to natural and man-made hazards or a combination of the two, reinforce the need for more effective, efficient, humane responses at the local, national and international levels. This study has yielded findings that can be used to strengthen planning and response by taking into account, where possible, evidence based on research that has been carried out with the engagement of community members and with support by key stakeholders. The most effective means of facilitating the development and implementation of consistent, coordinated policies and practices might be for the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction to take the lead in engaging key organizations in the required discussions and collaborations. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4102-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6498534/ /pubmed/31046763 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4102-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Jillson, Irene Anne
Clarke, Michael
Allen, Claire
Waller, Stephen
Koehlmoos, Tracey
Mumford, William
Jansen, Jeroen
McKay, Keith
Trant, Alexandra
Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study
title Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study
title_full Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study
title_fullStr Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study
title_full_unstemmed Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study
title_short Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study
title_sort improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6498534/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31046763
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4102-5
work_keys_str_mv AT jillsonireneanne improvingthescienceandevidencebaseofdisasterresponseapolicyresearchstudy
AT clarkemichael improvingthescienceandevidencebaseofdisasterresponseapolicyresearchstudy
AT allenclaire improvingthescienceandevidencebaseofdisasterresponseapolicyresearchstudy
AT wallerstephen improvingthescienceandevidencebaseofdisasterresponseapolicyresearchstudy
AT koehlmoostracey improvingthescienceandevidencebaseofdisasterresponseapolicyresearchstudy
AT mumfordwilliam improvingthescienceandevidencebaseofdisasterresponseapolicyresearchstudy
AT jansenjeroen improvingthescienceandevidencebaseofdisasterresponseapolicyresearchstudy
AT mckaykeith improvingthescienceandevidencebaseofdisasterresponseapolicyresearchstudy
AT trantalexandra improvingthescienceandevidencebaseofdisasterresponseapolicyresearchstudy