Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:43:07.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Legal Protections to Promote Response Willingness Among the Local Public Health Workforce

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2015

Lainie Rutkow ,
Jon S. Vernick ,
Carol B. Thompson ,
Rachael Piltch-Loeb  and
Daniel J. Barnett
Lainie Rutkow*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Jon S. Vernick
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Carol B. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Rachael Piltch-Loeb
Affiliation:
Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
Daniel J. Barnett
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Lainie Rutkow, JD, PhD, MPH, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 624 N. Broadway, Room 513, Baltimore, MD 21205 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The legal environment may improve response willingness among local health department (LHD) workers. We examined whether 3 hypothetical legal protections influence LHD workers’ self-reported response willingness for 4 emergency scenarios and whether specific demographic factors are associated with LHD workers’ response willingness given these legal protections.

Methods

Our 2011–2012 survey included questions on demographics and about attitudes and beliefs regarding LHD workers’ willingness to respond to 4 emergency scenarios given specific legal protections (i.e., ensuring priority health care for workers’ families, granting workers access to mental health services, and guaranteeing access to personal protective equipment). Data were collected from 1238 LHD workers in 3 states.

Results

Across scenarios, between 60% and 83% of LHD workers agreed that they would be more willing to respond given the presence of 1 of the 3 hypothetical legal protections. Among the 3 legal protections, a guarantee of personal protective equipment elicited the greatest agreement with improved response willingness.

Conclusions

Specific legal protections augment a majority of LHD workers’ response willingness. Policymakers must, however, balance improved response willingness with other considerations, such as the ethical implications of prioritizing responders over the general public. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:98–102)

Keywords

policy makingpublic health practicegovernmenthealth policypublic policy
Type
Brief Report
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 98 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2015 

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. Institute of Medicine. Research Priorities in Emergency Preparedness and Response for Public Health Systems: A Letter Report. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2008.Google Scholar
2. Enanoria, WT, Crawley, AW, Tseng, W, et al. The epidemiology and surveillance response to pandemic influenza A (H1N1) among local health departments in the San Francisco Bay Area. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:276.Google Scholar
3. National Association of County & City Health Officials. 2013 National Profile of Local Health Departments. Washington, DC: NACCHO; 2014.Google Scholar
4. Barnett, DJ, Thompson, CB, Errett, NA, et al. Determinants of emergency response willingness in the local public health workforce by jurisdictional and scenario patterns: a cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:164.Google Scholar
5. National Association of County and City Health Officials. Local Health Department Job Losses and Program Cuts: Findings from January 2012 Survey. Washington, DC: NACCHO; 2012.Google Scholar
6. Rutkow, L, Vernick, JS, Gakh, M, et al. The public health workforce and willingness to respond to emergencies: a 50-state analysis of potentially influential laws. J Law Med Ethics. 2014;42:64-71.Google Scholar
7. Witte, K, Allen, M. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:591-615.Google Scholar
8. State & County Quick Facts. US Census Bureau website. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html#. Accessed August 17, 2014.Google Scholar
9. Rosenblatt, RA, Casey, S, Richardson, M. Rural-urban differences in the public health workforce: local health departments in 3 rural Western states. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1102-1105.Google Scholar
10. Godin, G, Belanger-Gravel, A, Eccles, M, et al. Healthcare professionals’ intentions and behaviors: a systematic review of studies based on social cognitive theories. Implement Sci. 2008;3:36.Google Scholar