Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T04:58:25.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Disaster Research/Evaluation Frameworks, Part 1: An Overview–RETRACTED

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2014

Marvin L. Birnbaum*
Affiliation:
Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Physiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WisconsinUSA and Emeritus Editor-in-Chief, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
Elaine K. Daily
Affiliation:
Nursing Section Editor, Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, Secretary, World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine
Ann P. O'Rourke
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WisconsinUSA
Alessandro Loretti
Affiliation:
Consultant, retired from the World Health Organization
*
Correspondence: Marvin L. Birnbaum, MD, PhD Suite 407 610 N. Whitney Way Madison, WI 53705 USA E-mail mbirnbaum@wadem.org

Abstract

The goals of conducting disaster research are to obtain information to: (1) decrease the human, environmental, and economic losses; (2) decrease morbidity; (3) decrease pain and suffering; and (4) enhance the recovery of the affected population. Two principal, but inter-related, branches of disaster research are: (1) Epidemiological; and (2) Interventional. In response to the need for the discipline of disaster health to build its science on data that are generalizable and comparable, a set of five Frameworks have been developed to structure the information and research of the health aspects of disasters: (1) Conceptual; (2) Longitudinal; (3) Transectional Societal; (4) Relief-Recovery; and (5) Risk-Reduction. These Frameworks provide a standardized format for studying and comparing the epidemiology of disasters as well as evaluating the interventions (responses) provided prior to, during, and following a disaster, especially as they relate to the health status of the people affected or at-risk. Critical to all five Frameworks is the inclusion of standardized definitions of the terms used to describe factors that lead to and affect the occurrence and severity of a disaster. The Conceptual Framework describes the progression of a hazard that becomes an event, which causes structural damage and a decrease or loss of function (functional damage), that, in turn, produces needs that lead to a disaster. The Longitudinal Framework describes this chronological progression as phases in order of their appearance in time, even though some of them occur concurrently. In order to study and compare the effects of an event on the complex amalgam that constitutes a society, the essential functions of a society have been deconstructed into 13 Basic Societal Systems that comprise the Transectional Societal Framework. These diverse, but inter-related Basic Societal Systems interface with each other through a 14th system called Coordination and Control. Epidemiological research studies the relationships and occurrences that influence and result from a disaster. Interventional research involves the evaluation of interventions, whether they are directed at relief, recovery, hazard mitigation, capacity building, or performance. The Relief-Recovery and Risk-Reduction Frameworks are based on a Disaster Logic Model. The Relief-Recovery Framework provides the structure necessary to systematically evaluate specific interventions provided during the Relief and Recovery phases of a disaster. The Risk-Reduction Framework details the processes involved in mitigating the risk that a hazard will produce a destructive event and/or that capacity building will augment the resilience of a community to the consequences of such an event. It incorporates a cascade of risks that lead from the presence of a hazard to the development of a disaster. Risk is described as the likelihood that each of the steps leading from a hazard to a disaster will take place; it also includes the probable consequences of the occurrence of each of the elements in the Conceptual Framework. The Conceptual, Longitudinal, and Transectional Societal Frameworks are useful in epidemiological research, i.e., the study of the incidence of, and factors influencing events and disasters. The Relief-Recovery and Risk-Reduction Frameworks are added to the Conceptual, Longitudinal, and Transectional Societal Frameworks for conducting and reporting of interventional research/evaluations. Examples of the application of these Frameworks are provided.

Type
Special Report
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Note: Many of the concepts and some of the text and content provided in this paper were developed in association with Knut Ole Sundnes, MD and evolved from the Health Disaster Management: Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the Utstein Style.* Initial and partial support for this project was provided by the Task Force for Quality Control of Disaster Management. This Project is under the auspices of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine.

References

Guralnik, DB, Friend, JH. eds. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. Cleveland, Ohio USA: World Publishing Co.; 1968:1237.Google Scholar
Sundnes, KO, Birnbaum, ML, eds. Task Force for Quality Control of Disaster Medicine. Health Disaster Management: Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the Utstein Style. Prehosp Disaster Med.. 2003;17(S3).Google Scholar
Sundnes, KO, Birnbaum, ML, eds. Task Force for Quality Control of Disaster Medicine. Chapter 4: Conceptual Model: Hazard, Risk, Vulnerability, and Damage. Health Disaster Management: Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the Utstein Style. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003;17(S3):56-68.Google Scholar
Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction. Resilient People, Resilient Planet. Chair's Summary, Fourth Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, May 21-23, 2013. http://www.ifrc.org/docs/IDRL/33306_finalchairssummaryoffourthsessionof.pdf. Accessed November 1, 2013.Google Scholar
Pickett, JP (ed). The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th ed. Boston Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002:1183.Google Scholar
United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR). December 3, 2003. http://www.unisdr.org/who-we-are/international-strategy-for-disaster-reduction. Accessed November 19, 2013.Google Scholar
Business Dictionary.com. Definition of vulnerability. www.Businessdictionary.com/definition/vulnerability.html. Accessed November 19, 2013.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. (ed). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 9th ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 1995:475.Google Scholar
Pickett, JP (ed). The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company; 2002:520.Google Scholar
Guralnik, DB, Friend, JH, eds. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. Cleveland, Ohio USA: World Publishing Co.; 1968:401.Google Scholar
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Homepage. http://www.cred.be/. Accessed August 2, 2011.Google Scholar
Kulling, P, Birnbaum, M, Murray, V, Rockenschaub, G. Guidelines for reports on health crises and critical health events. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(4):378-382.10.1017/S1049023X00008402CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colleges of Education, College of Arts & Sciences [Education Programs], Colorado State University, Colorado USA: Unit Assessment System. www.csu.edu/collegeofeducation/ncate/NCATE_UnitAssessmentSystemLogicModelpdf. Accessed August 1, 2011.Google Scholar
Funnell, S. Developing and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation and performance monitoring. In: Rogers P, Hacsi T, Petrosino A, Huebner T, eds. Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities. New Directions for Evaluation. 2000; 87: 91-101.10.1002/ev.1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Powell, E. Building Capacity in Evaluating Outcomes. Madison, Wisconsin USA: University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension, Program Development and Evaluation. 2008. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande. Accessed April 9, 2013.Google Scholar
University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension Program Development and Evaluation. Developing a Logic Model: Teaching and Training Guide. 2008. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmguidecomplete.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2013.Google Scholar
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Using Logic Models to Bring Together Planning, Evaluation, and Action. A Logic Model Development Guide. http://www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2006/02/wk-kellogg-foundation-logic-model-development-guide.aspx. Accessed February 26, 2013.Google Scholar
University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension Program Development and Evaluation. Developing a Logic Model: Teaching and Training Guide. 2008; 4. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmguidecomplete.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2013.Google Scholar
University of Wisconsin-Extension, Cooperative Extension Program Development and Evaluation. Developing a Logic Model: Teaching and Training Guide. 2008;7. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmguidecomplete.pdf. Accessed March 26, 2013.Google Scholar