Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:40:21.146Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Associated with the Intention of Health Care Personnel to Respond to a Disaster

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2014

Susan B. Connor
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Over the past decade, numerous groups of researchers have studied the willingness of health care personnel (HCP) to respond when a disaster threatens the health of a community. Not one of those studies reported that 100% of HCP were willing to work during a public-health event (PHE).

Problem

The objective of this study was to explore factors associated with the intent of HCP to respond to a future PHE.

Methods

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) framed this cross-sectional study. Data were obtained via a web-based survey from 305 HCP. Linear associations between the TPB-based predictor and outcome variables were examined using Pearson's correlations. Differences between two groups of HCP were calculated using independent t tests. A model-generating approach was used to develop and assess a series of TBP-based observed variable structural equation models for prediction of intent to respond to a future PHE and to explore moderating and mediating effects.

Results

The beginning patterns of relationships identified by the correlation matrix and t tests were evident in the final structural equation model, even though the patterns of prediction differed from those posited by the theory. Outcome beliefs had both a significant, direct effect on intention and an indirect effect on intention that was mediated by perceived behavioral control. Control beliefs appeared to influence intention through perceived behavioral control, as posited by the TPB, and unexpectedly through subjective norm. Subjective norm not only mediated the relationship between control beliefs and intention, but also the relationship between referent beliefs and intention. Additionally, professional affiliation seemed to have a moderating effect on intention.

Conclusion

The intention to respond was influenced primarily by normative and control factors. The intent of nurses to respond to a future PHE was influenced most by the control factors, whereas the intent of other HCP was shaped more by the normative factors. Health care educators can bolster the normative and control factors through education by focusing on team building and knowledge related to accessing supplies and support needed to respond when a disaster occurs.

ConnorSB. Factors Associated with the Intention of Health Care Personnel to Respond to a Disaster. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(6):1-6.

Keywords

disaster responsehealth care personnelintention/willingness to respondtheory of planned behavior
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 29 , Issue 6 , December 2014 , pp. 555 - 560
Copyright
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.)

References

1. Guha-Sapir, D, Hargitt, D, Hoyois, P. Thirty years of natural disasters 1974-2003: the numbers. Natural News Web site. http://www.em-dat.net/documents/Publication/publication_2004_emdat.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2013.Google Scholar
2. Gutierrez, D. Natural disasters up more than 400 percent in two decades. Natural News Web site. http://www.naturalnews.com/023362.html#ixzz1wg0LcVpX. Accessed March 3, 2013.Google Scholar
3. Miller, P. Weather gone wild. National Geographic. 2012;222(3):30-55.Google Scholar
4. Chaffee, M. Willingness of health care personnel to work in a disaster: an integrative review of the literature. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2009;3(1):42-56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Gershon, RR, Magda, LA, Qureshi, KA, et al. Factors associated with the ability and willingness of essential workers to report to duty during a pandemic. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(10):995-1003.Google Scholar
6. Shapira, Y, Marganitt, B, Roziner, I, Shochet, T, Bar, Y, Shemer, J. Willingness of staff to report to their hospital duties following an unconventional missile attack: a state-wide survey. Isr J Med Sci. 1991;27(11-12):704-711.Google Scholar
7. Smith, E. Emergency health care workers’ willingness to work during major emergencies and disasters. Aust J Emerg Man. 2007;22(2):21-24.Google Scholar
8. Wong, TY, Koh, GCH, Cheong, SK, et al. A cross-sectional study of primary-care physicians in Singapore on their concerns and preparedness for an Avian Influenza outbreak. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2008;37(6):458-464.Google Scholar
9. Qureshi, K, Gershon, RR, Sherman, MF, et al. Health care professionals’ ability and willingness to report to duty during catastrophic disasters. J Urban Health. 2005;82(3):378-388.Google Scholar
10. Davidson, JE, Sekayan, A, Agan, D, Good, L, Shaw, D, Smilde, R. Disaster dilemma: factors affecting decision to come to work during a natural disaster. Adv Emerg Nurs J. 2009;31(3):248-257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Mitani, S, Kuboyama, K, Shirakawa, T. Nursing in sudden-onset disasters: factors and information that affect participation. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2003;18(4):359-366.Google Scholar
12. Smith, E. Willingness to work during a terrorist attack: a case-study of first responders during the 9/11 World Trade Centre terrorist attacks. J Emerg Primary Health Car. 2008;6(1):1-11.Google Scholar
13. Smith, E, Morgans, A, Qureshi, K, Burkle, F, Archer, F. Paramedics’ perceptions of risk and willingness to work during disasters. Aust J Emerg Man. 2009;24(3):21-27.Google Scholar
14. Connor, SB. When and why health care personnel respond to a disaster: the state of the science. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(3):1-5.Google Scholar
15. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Dec. 1991;50(2):179-211.Google Scholar
16. Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2002;32(4):665-683.Google Scholar
17. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections. Psychol Health. 2011;26(9):1113-1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Ajzen, I. “The theory of planned behavior.” In: Lange PAM, Kruglanski AW, Higgins ET, (eds). Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London, UK: Sage; 2012:438-459.Google Scholar
19. Ajzen, I. Theory of Planned Behavior Web site. http//people.umass.edu/aizen/tpb.diag.html. Accessed February 12, 2013.Google Scholar
20. DeVellis, RF. Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage. 2003.Google Scholar
21. Francis, JJ, Eccles, MP, Johnston, M, et al. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behavior: a manual for health service researchers. Newcastle Centre for Health Services Research 2004. www.bangor.ac.uk/~pes004/exercise_psych/…/tpb_manual.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2012.Google Scholar
22. Francis, JJ, Johnston, M, Eccles, MP, Grimshaw, J, Kaner, EFS. Measurement issues in the theory of planned behavior: a supplement to the manual for constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour. 2004:43-76. http://www.rebeqi.org/ViewFile.aspx?itemID=219. Accessed April 16, 2012.Google Scholar
23. Lynn, MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research. 1986;35(6):382-385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Sidani, S, Braden, CJ. Evaluating Nursing Interventions. A Theory-driven Approach. Thousand Oaks, California USA: Sage; 1998.Google Scholar
25. Cronbach, LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334.Google Scholar
26. Cronbach, LJ, Shavelson, RJ. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Meas. 2004;64(3):391-418.Google Scholar
27. Bollen, K. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York, New York USA: Wiley & Sons; 1989.Google Scholar
28. Arbuckle, J. Amos 18 User's Guide. Chicago, Illinois USA: SPSS Inc.; 2009.Google Scholar
29. Byrne, BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS, 2nd ed. New York, New York USA: Routledge; 2010.Google Scholar
30. Baron, RM, Kenny, DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986;51(6):1173-1182.Google Scholar
31. Preacher, KJ, Leonardelli, GJ. Calculation for the Sobel Test. 2010; Web site. http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm. Accessed March 3, 2013.Google Scholar
32. Smith, E, Burkle, FM Jr., Archer, FL. Fear, familiarity, and the perception of risk: a quantitative analysis of disaster-specific concerns of paramedics. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2011;5(1):46-53.Google Scholar
33. Grimes, DE, Mendias, EP. Nurses’ intentions to respond to bioterrorism and other infectious disease emergencies. Nurs Outlook. 2010;58(1):10-16.Google Scholar
34. Ko, NY, Feng, MC, Chiu, DY, Wu, MH, Feng, JY, Pan, SM. Applying theory of planned behavior to predict nurses’ intention and volunteering to care for SARS patients in southern Taiwan. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2004;20(8):389-398.Google Scholar
35. O'Boyle, C, Robertson, C, Secor-Turner, M. Nurses’ beliefs about public health emergencies: fear of abandonment. Am J Infect Control. 2006;34(6):351-357.Google Scholar