Policy implications of public health workforce development for disaster preparedness in the United States

Public health efforts were initiated in the United States with legislative actions for enhancing food safety and ensuring pure drinking water. Some additional policy initiatives during the early 20th century helped organize and coordinate relief efforts for victims of natural disasters. By 1950's the federal government expanded its role for providing better health and safety to the communities, and its disaster relief activities became more structured. A rise in terrorism related incidents during the late 1990's prompted new proactive policy directions. The traditional policy and program efforts for rescue, recovery, and relief measures changed focus to include disaster preparedness and countermeasures against terrorism.^ The study took a holistic approach by analyzing all major disaster related policies and programs, in regard to their structure, process, and outcome. Study determined that United States has a strong disaster preparedness agenda and appropriate programs are in place with adequate policy support, and the country is prepared to meet all possible security challenges that may arise in the future. The man-made disaster of September 11th gave a major thrust to improve security and enhance preparedness of the country. These new efforts required large additional funding from the federal government. Most existing preparedness programs at the local and national levels are run with federal funds which is insufficient in some cases. This discrepancy arises from the fact that federal funding for disaster preparedness programs at present are not allocated by the level of risks to individual states or according to the risks that can be assigned to critical infrastructures across the country. However, the increased role of the federal government in public health affairs of the states is unusual, and opposed to the spirit of our constitution where sovereignty is equally divided between the federal government and the states. There is also shortage of manpower in public health to engage in disaster preparedness activities, despite some remarkable progress following the September 11th disaster.^ Study found that there was a significant improvement in knowledge and limited number of studies showed improvement of skills, increase in confidence and improvement in message-mapping. Among healthcare and allied healthcare professionals, short-term training on disaster preparedness increased knowledge and improved personal protective equipment use with some limited improvement in confidence and skills. However, due to the heterogeneity of these studies, the results and interpretation of this systematic review may be interpreted with caution.^

The response of Texas public health agencies and workers to the emergency preparedness initiatives after 9/11

The purpose of this research was to better understand the impact of the terrorist attacks in 2001 on public health, particularly for Texas public health. This study employed mixed methods to examine changes to public health culture within Texas local public health agencies, important attitudes of public health workers toward responding to a disaster, and the funding policies that might ensure our investment in public health emergency preparedness is protected. ^ A qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with a large sample of public health officials in Texas found that all the constituent parts of a peculiar culture for public health preparedness existed that spanned the state's local health departments regardless of size, or funding level. The new preparedness culture in Texas had the hallmarks necessary for a robust public health preparedness and emergency response system. ^ The willingness of public health workers, necessary to make these kinds of changes and mount a disaster response was examined in one of Texas' most experienced disaster response teams—the public health workers for the City of Houston. A hypothesized latent variable model showed that willingness mediated all other factors in the model (self-efficacy, knowledge, barriers, and risk perception) for self-reported likelihood of reporting to work for a disaster. The RMSEA for the final model was 0.042 with a confidence interval of 0.036—0.049 and the chi-squared difference test was P=0.08, indicating a well-fitted model that suggests willingness is an important factor for consideration by preparedness planners and researchers alike. ^ Finally, with disasters on the rise and federal funding for preparedness dwindling, a review of states' policies for the distribution of these funds and their advantages and disadvantages were examined through a review of current literature and public documents, and a survey of state-level public health officials, emergency management professionals and researchers. Although the base plus per-capita method is the most common, it is not necessarily perceived to be the most effective. No clear "optimal" method emerged from the study, but recommendations for a strategic combination of three methods were made that has the potential to maximize the benefits of each method, while minimizing the weaknesses.^