Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Assessing Radiation Emergency Preparedness Planning by Using Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Methodology

  • Mawuli K. Nyaku (a1), Amy F. Wolkin (a2), Jevon McFadden (a3), Jim Collins (a4), Michelle Murti (a2), Amy Schnall (a2), Shane Bies (a5), Martha Stanbury (a4), Jennifer Beggs (a4) and Tesfaye M. Bayleyegn (a2)...

Abstract

Introduction

Approximately 1.2 million persons in Oakland County, Michigan (USA) reside less than 50 miles from the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, but information is limited regarding how residents might react during a radiation emergency. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) survey methodology has been used in disaster and nondisaster settings to collect reliable and accurate population-based public health information, but it has not been used to assess household-level emergency preparedness for a radiation emergency. To improve emergency preparedness plans in Oakland County, including how residents might respond during a radiation emergency, Oakland County Health Division (OCHD), with assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH), conducted a CASPER survey.

Methods

During September 2012, a 2-stage cluster sampling design was used to select 210 representative households in Oakland County. By using in-person surveys, the proportion of households with essential needs and supplies, how residents might respond to public health authorities’ instructions, and their main source for obtaining information during a radiation emergency were assessed. Data were weighted to account for the complex sampling design.

Results

Of the goal of 210 households, 192 (91.4%) surveys were completed: 64.7% and 85.4% of respondents indicated having 3-day supplies of water and of nonperishable food, respectively; 62.8% had a 7-day supply of prescription medication for each person who needed it. Additionally, 64.2% had a working carbon monoxide detector; 67.1% had a first-aid kit; and 52% had an alternative heat source. In response to instructions from public health officials during a radiation emergency, 93.3% of all respondents would report to a radiation screening center; 96% would evacuate; and 91.8% would shelter-in-place. During a radiation emergency, 55.8% of respondents indicated their main information source would be television, 18.4% radio, and 13.6% the Internet. The most trusted source for information would be the local public health department (36.5%), local news (23%), a physician (11.2%), and family members (11.1%). Including completed and incomplete interviews, refusals, and nonrespondents, 517 total households were contacted.

Conclusions

CASPER data regarding how residents might react during a radiation emergency provided objective and quantifiable information that will be used to develop Oakland County's radiation emergency preparedness plans. Survey information demonstrates the feasibility and usefulness of CASPER methodology for radiation emergency preparedness planning.

Nyaku MK , Wolkin AF , McFadden J , Collins J , Murti M , Schnall A , Bies S , Stanbury M , Beggs J , Bayleyegn TM . Assessing Radiation Emergency Preparedness Planning by Using Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Methodology. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(3):1-9.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Correspondence: Mawuli K. Nyaku, DrPH, MPH CDC Epidemic Intelligence Service Michigan Department of Community Health 201 Townsend Street, 5th Floor Lansing, MI 48913 USA E-mail vjh7@cdc.gov

References

Hide All
1. Steiger, SM, Hamilton, R, Keeler, J, Orville, RE. Lake-effect thunderstorms in the lower Great Lakes. Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology. 2009;48(5):889-902.
2. Fitzgerald, J, Wollner, SB, Adalja, AA, Morhard, R, Cicero, A, Inglesby, TV. After Fukushima: managing the consequences of a radiological release. Biosecur Bioterror. 2012;10(2):228-236.
3. International Atomic Energy Agency. What is a radiological emergency? http://www-ns.iaea.org/tech-areas/emergency/iec/frg/what-is-a-rad-emergency.asp.2012. Accessed May 22, 2013.
4. Michigan Department of Community Health and Office of Public Health Preparedness. Public Health & Medical Preparedness: a decade of achievement in Michigan. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdch/Commemorative_Brochure_Final2_362709_7.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2013.
5. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) Toolkit. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/surveillance/pdf/CASPER_toolkit_508%20COMPLIANT.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2013.
6. Slovic, P. Perception of risk from radiation. Rad Prot Dosimetry. 1996;68(3-4):165-180.
7. Onishi N, Fackler M. Japan Held Nuclear Data, Leaving Evacuees in Peril. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/09/world/asia/09japan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. Accessed July 17, 2013.
8. Henderson, RH, Sundaresan, T. Cluster sampling to assess immunization coverage: a review of experience with a simplified sampling method. Bull World Health Organ. 1982;60(2):253-260.
9. Malilay, J, Flanders, WD, Brogan, D. A modified cluster-sampling method for post-disaster rapid assessment of needs. Bull World Health Organ. 1996;74(4):399-405.
10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assessment of household preparedness through training exercises-two metropolitan counties, Tennessee, 2011. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012;61(36):720-722.
11. Buttke, D, Vagi, S, Schnall, A, et al. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) one year following the Gulf Coast oil spill: Alabama and Mississippi, 2011. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012;27(6):496-502.
12. Choudhary, E, Chen, TH, Martin, C, et al. Public health needs assessments of Tutuila Island, American Samoa, after the 2009 tsunami. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2012;6(3):209-216.
13. Zane, DF, Bayleyegn, TM, Haywood, TL, et al. Community assessment for public health emergency response following Hurricane Ike-Texas, 25-30 September 2008. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(6):503-510.
14. Horney, J, Davis, MK, Davis, SE, Fleischauer, A. An evaluation of Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) in North Carolina, 2003-2010. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(2):94-98.
15. U.S. Department of Commerce. United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder Website. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t. Accessed August 6, 2013.
16. Levac, J, Toal-Sullivan, D, O'Sullivan, TL. Household emergency preparedness: a literature review. J Community Health. 2012;37(3):725-733.
17. Paek, HJ, Hilyard, K, Freimuth, V, Barge, JK, Mindlin, M. Theory-based approaches to understanding public emergency preparedness: implications for effective health and risk communication. J Health Commun. 2010;15(4):428-444.
18. US Department of Homeland Security. Target capabilities list. A companion to the National Preparedness Guidelines. http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/training/tcl.pdf. Accessed July 17, 2013.
19. Zwolinski, LR, Stanbury, M, Manente, S. Nuclear power plant emergency preparedness: results from an evaluation of Michigan's potassium iodide distribution program. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2012;6(3):263-269.
20. Federal Emergency Management Agency. Build a kit. http://www.ready.gov/build-a-kit. Accessed July 17, 2013.
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Rapid health needs assessment following Hurricane Andrew-Florida and Louisiana, 1992. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1992;41(37):685-688.
22. Kennedy, G, Richards, M, Chicarelli, M, Ernst, A, Harrell, A, Stites, D. Disaster mitigation: initial response. South Med J. 2013;106(1):13-16.
23. Ablah, E, Konda, K, Kelley, CL. Factors predicting individual emergency preparedness: a multi-state analysis of 2006 BRFSS data. Biosecur Bioterror. 2009;7(3):317-330.
24. Morton, M, Levy, JL. Challenges in disaster data collection during recent disasters. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2011;26(3):196-201.
25. Perry, RW, Lindell, MK. Preparedness for emergency response: guidelines for the emergency planning process. Disasters. 2003;27(4):336-350.

Keywords

Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Nyaku Supplementary Material
Figure

 Unknown (3.1 MB)
3.1 MB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

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