Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Experts’ Views on the Gaps in Public Health Emergency Preparedness in Israel: A Qualitative Case Study

  • Anat Gesser-Edelsburg (a1), Ricky Cohen (a2) and Alon Diamant (a3)

Abstract

Background:

Despite the significant improvement in all components of preparedness in the past decade, there are still gaps between the guidelines and the reality on the ground. The purpose of this study is to explore how Israeli public health and emergency medicine experts perceive the demands for health organization emergency preparedness and the actual practice.

Methods:

Qualitative phenomenological research. We interviewed 22 Israeli public health and emergency medicine experts face-to-face and conducted a content analysis.

Results:

The findings revealed barriers in the following areas: preparation and readiness of hospitals, preparedness and readiness in the community, connection between the community and the hospital, inter-agency coordination and interface, interdisciplinary integration, preparedness resources, postcrisis evaluation, assimilating smart technologies, information accessibility, and communication.

Conclusions:

To reduce the gap between theory and practice, retrospective research and evaluation must be included to learn in depth what strategies and resources should be used during a health crisis. Likewise, profiles should be constructed and the community should be segmented in order to design resilience programs and accommodate information to subpopulations.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Correspondence and reprint requests to Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, University of Haifa School of Public Health, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel31905 (e-mail: ageser@univ.haifa.ac.il).

References

Hide All
1.Levy, LA, Rokusek, CF, Bragg, SM, et al. Interdisciplinary approach to all-hazards preparedness. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(2):S8-S12.
2.Taylor, L, Miro, S, Bookbinder, SH, et al. Innovative infrastructure in New Jersey: using health education professionals to inform and educate during a crisis. Health Promot Pract. 2008;9(4_suppl):88S-95S.
3.Murthy, BP, Molinari, NAM, LeBlanc, TT, et al. Progress in public health emergency preparedness-United States, 2001-2016. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(S2):S180-S185.
4.CDC. Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.
5.CDC. Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Capabilities: National Standards for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Public Health. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.
6.WHO. World Health Organization Outbreak Communication Planning Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
7.WHO. Emergency Response Framework. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
8.WHO. International Health Emergency Response Plan: Marburg Virus Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
9.Savoia, E, Lin, L, Bernard, D, et al. Public health system research in public health emergency preparedness in the United States (2009-2015): actionable knowledge base. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(S2):1-6.
10.Khan, Y, Fazli, G, Henry, B, et al. The evidence base of primary research in public health emergency preparedness: a scoping review and stakeholder consultation. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:432.
11.Ramsbottom, A, O’Brien, E, Ciotti, L, et al. Enablers and barriers to community engagement in public health emergency preparedness: a literature review. J Community Health. 2018;43(2):412-420.
12.Toner, ES, Ravi, S, Adalja, A, et al. Doing good by playing well with others: exploring local collaboration for emergency preparedness and response. Health Secur. 2015;13(4):281-289.
13.Braun, BI, Wineman, NV, Finn, NL, et al. Integrating hospitals into community emergency preparedness planning. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(11):799-811.
14.CDC. Public Health Preparedness and Response 2018 National Snapshot. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.
15.State Comptroller. Annual Control Reports for Preparedness and Readiness for Emergancy. Jerusalem: The State Comptroller and Ombudsman of Israel; 2015.
16.Padgett, DK.Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Public Health. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2012.
17.Creswell, JW, Hanson, WE, Clark Plano, VL, et al. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. Couns Psychol. 2007;35(2):236-264.
18.Denzin, NK, Lincoln, YS.The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011.
19.Lombard, M, Snyder-Duch, J, Bracken, CC.Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res. 2006;28(4):587-604.
20.Braun, V, Clarke, V.Using thematic analysis in phsycology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101.
21.Corbin, J, Strauss, A.Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015.
22.FEMA. A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security 2011. FDOC 104-008-1.
23.UNISDR. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Geneva: The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2015.
24.WHO. Strengthening Health Security by Implementing the International Health Regulations (2005). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
25.The European Parliament and The Council of The European Union. Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal of the European Union. 2013;56:293/291-215.
26.Gesser-Edelsburg, A, Stolero, N, Mordini, E, et al. Emerging infectious disease (EID) communication during the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak: literature review (2009-2013) of the methodology used for EID communication analysis. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(2):199-206.
27.Gertler, PJ, Martinez, S, Premand, P, et al. Impact Evaluation in Practice. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2016.
28.Yanai, J, Weiss, S.Drug abuse primary prevention research and programs among Jewish youth in Israel: a review. Drugs Educ Prevent Policy. 1994;1(1):49-58.
29.Rootman, I, Goodstadt, M, McQueen, DV, et al. Evaluation in Health Promotion Principles and Perspectives. Denemark: WHO Regional Publications; 2001.
30.Guba, EG, Lincoln, YS.Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1989.
31.Kegler, MC, Redmon, PB.Using technical assistance to strengthen tobacco control capacity: evaluation findings from the Tobacco Technical Assistance Consortium. Public Health Rep. 2006;121(5):547-556.
32.Vasquez, GM, Taylor, M.Research perspectives on “the public”. In: Heath, RL, ed. Handbook of Public Relations. London: Sage; 2001:139-154.
33.Transcript of virtual press conference with Gregory Hartl, Spokesperson for H1N1, and Dr Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO Director of the Initiative for Vaccine Research, World Health Organization [press release]. 2009.
34.Kotler, P, Lee, NR.Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008.
35.Gesser-Edelsburg, A, Shir-Raz, Y, Walter, N, et al. The public sphere in emerging infectious disease communication: recipient or active and vocal partner? Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(4):447-458.
36.Gesser-Edelsburg, A, Mordini, E, James, JJ, et al. Risk communication recommendations and implementation during emerging infectious diseases: a case study of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2014;8(2):158-169.
37.Reynolds, B. Crisis and emergency risk communication: pandemic influenza. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/cerc/resources/pdf/cerc-pandemicflu-oct07.pdf. (Accessed November 23, 2014).

Keywords

Experts’ Views on the Gaps in Public Health Emergency Preparedness in Israel: A Qualitative Case Study

  • Anat Gesser-Edelsburg (a1), Ricky Cohen (a2) and Alon Diamant (a3)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed