Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-fv566 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T03:59:50.975Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Survey of Emergency Management Professionals to Assess Ideal Characteristics of a Photographic-Based Family Reunification Tool

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Sarita Chung ,
Stephen Monteiro ,
Sonja I. Ziniel ,
Leslie A. Kalish ,
Paula Klaman  and
Michael Shannon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective: A reunification tool that captures images of children at the time of the disaster would enable parents to locate their missing children, particularly if the children are unable to communicate their identity. This study assessed the ideal features and parameters of a photographic-based reunification tool.

Methods: A convenience sample of federal, state, and hospital-based emergency management professionals were surveyed to elicit their preferences regarding an image-based reunification algorithm, to assess the parents' level of difficulty in viewing images with facial trauma, and to determine the minimum percentage of successful reunifications needed to justify adoption of a reunification tool.

Results: Of 322 emergency management professionals surveyed, 129 (40%) responded. Only 18% favored a photographic-based tool that would display images in which only the categories of age, gender, and facial features (eye, hair, and skin color) would exactly match the parent's description of the child. However, 72% preferred a broader, less-rigid system in which the images displayed would match all or most features in the parents’ description of the missing child, allowing parents to view more of the image database. Most (85%) preferred a tool showing unedited images of living children, allowing parents to view facial trauma. However, more respondents reported that parents would find viewing unedited images with facial trauma somewhat or very difficult emotionally compared with edited images for both living (77% vs 20%, P <. 001) and deceased children (91% vs 70%, P <. 001.) In a disaster involving 1000 children, a tool that reunites a minimum of 10% of families would be adopted by over 50% of the participants. Participants were willing to accept a lower percentage of reunifications in a disaster involving 1000 children compared with disasters involving 10 (P <. 001) or 100 children. (P <. 001).

Conclusions: Emergency management professionals identified desirable characteristics of a photographic-based reunification tool, including an algorithm displaying unedited photographs of missing children that loosely matches the parents' description, acknowledging the parents' emotional difficulty in viewing photographs with facial trauma. Participants were also willing to accept a lower percentage of successful reunifications as the scale of the disaster size increased.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:156–162)

Keywords

family reunificationpediatricsemergency managementdisaster planningemergency medical servicesphotographyfamilychildren's healthfacial injuriesidentification systems
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 2012 , pp. 156 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2012

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.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Balsari, S, Lemery, J, Williams, TP, Nelson, BD.Protecting the children of Haiti. N Engl J Med. 2010;362 (9):e25.Google Scholar
2.World Health Organization. National Commission on Children and Disasters Interim Report October 2009. Unaccompanied and Separated Children in the Tsunami-affected Countries Guiding Principles. http://www.who.org.mv/EN/Section40/Section41_56.htm. Accessed July 20, 2010.Google Scholar
3.Watts, J.China earthquake “biggest disaster for children in seven years.” The Guardian.2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/22/china. Accessed December 1, 2010.Google Scholar
4.Markenson, D, Reynolds, SAmerican Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Pediatric Emergency Medicine; Task Force on Terrorism. The pediatrician and disaster preparedness. Pediatrics. 2006;117 (2):e340–e362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Chung, S, Shannon, M.Hospital planning for acts of terrorism and other public health emergencies involving children. Arch Dis Child. 2005;90 (12):1300–1307.Google Scholar
6.Brandenburg, MA, Watkins, SM, Brandenburg, KL, Schieche, C.Operation Child-ID: reunifying children with their legal guardians after Hurricane Katrina. Disasters. 2007;31 (3):277–287.Google Scholar
7.Nager, AL.Family reunification–concepts and challenges. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2009;10:195–207.Google Scholar
8.Broughton, DD, Allen, EE, Hannemann, RE, Petrikin, JE.Getting 5000 families back together: reuniting fractured families after a disaster: the role of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Pediatrics. 2006;117 (5, pt 3):S442–S445.Google Scholar
9.Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Emergency Care for Children–Growing Pains.500 Fifth St NW, Washington, DC 20001. National Academy Press; June 13, 2006.Google Scholar
10.Blake, N, Stevenson, K.Reunification: keeping families together in crisis. J Trauma. 2009;67 2(suppl)S147–S19357893000046991.Google Scholar
11.US Department of Health and Human Services. National Commission of Children and Disasters Interim Report. http://www.childrenanddisasters.acf.hhs.gov/20091014_508IR_partII.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2010.Google Scholar
12.US Department of Homeland Security. Federal Emergency Management Agency. National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System. 2009. http://www.fema.gov/media/fact_sheets/nefrls.shtm. Accessed July 1, 2010.Google Scholar
13.Mace, SE, Sharieff, G, Bern, A, et alPediatric issues in disaster management, part 2: evacuation centers and family separation/reunification. Am J Disaster Med. 2010;5 (3):149–161.Google Scholar
14.Haiti earthquake–what we're hearing. CNN, 2010. http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/12/haiti.social.media/index.html. Accessed July 1, 2010.Google Scholar
15.Haiti Quake People Finder. 2010. http://www.archmediaproject.org/2010/04/connections-basic-communications/.Google Scholar
16.ReUnite. 2010 http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/reunite/id368052994?mt=8#. Accessed July 1, 2010.Google Scholar
17.Child Identification program to use face biometrics. Biometric Technology Today. 2010;1:12.Google Scholar
18.Recording children's biometrics is far from child's play. Biometrics Technology Today. 2010;2010 (1):12.Google Scholar
19.Chung, S, Shannon, M.Reuniting children with their families during disasters: a proposed plan for greater success. Am J Disaster Med. 2007;2 (3):113–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.SAS Institute. 2011. SAS/STAT® User's Guide. Vols. 1-3. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
21.Kaplowitz, M, Hadlock, T, Levine, R.A comparsion of Web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Q. 2004;68:94–101.Google Scholar
22.US Department of Health and Human Services. Health Information Privacy. HHS.gov. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/index.html. Accessed April 10, 2011.Google Scholar
23.US Department of Health and Human Services Health Information Privacy - Disclosures for Emergency Preparedness—A Decision Tool. HHS.gov. http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/special/emergency/decisiontoolintro.html. Accessed April 10, 2011.Google Scholar
24.Xiang, B, Cheng, W, Liu, J, Huang, L, Li, Y, Liu, L.Triage of pediatric injuries after the 2008 Wen-Chuan earthquake in China. J Pediatr Surg. 2009;44 (12):2273–2277.Google Scholar
25. McCarthy, ML, Brewster, P, Hsu, EB, Macintyre, AG, Kelen, GD.Consensus and tools needed to measure health care emergency management capabilities. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009;3 2(suppl)S45–S51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Markenson, D, Krug, S.Developing pediatric emergency preparedness performance measures. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2009;10:229–239.Google Scholar
27.Nelson, CD, Beckjord, EB, Dausey, DJ, Chan, E, Lotstein, D, Lurie, N.How can we strengthen the evidence base in public health preparedness? Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2008;2 (4):247–250.Google Scholar
28.Nelson, C, Chan, E, Chandra, A, et alDeveloping national standards for public health emergency preparedness with a limited evidence base. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2010;4 (4):285–290.Google Scholar
29.Auerbach, PS, Norris, RL, Menon, AS, et alCivil-military collaboration in the initial medical response to the earthquake in Haiti. N Engl J Med. 2010;362 (10):e32.Google Scholar