Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T23:03:21.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Improvement of General Disaster Preparedness Belief Scale Based on Health Belief Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2018

Ebru Inal  and
Nuri Dogan
Ebru Inal*
Affiliation:
Emergency and Disaster Management Department, School of Health, Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Canakkale, Turkey
Nuri Dogan
Affiliation:
Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Education, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey
*
Correspondence: Ebru Inal, Msc, PhD Emergency and Disaster Management Department Canakkale Onsekiz Mart University Canakkale, Turkey, E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

The Health Belief Model (HBM) can be used as a guide in enhancing the peoples’ awareness, improving the motivation, and providing tools that address beliefs and attitudes toward general disaster preparedness (GDP).

Methods

The aim of this study was to improve and re-test all psychometric properties of the published General Disaster Preparedness Belief (GDPB) scale based on HBM carried out in the general population. This scale development study measured by 58 items was prepared under the same structure of the developed GDPB scale that measured 31 items before. This expanded scale was applied to 973 individuals. Firstly, the data from application of the expanded scale was examined under Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA). Then, the estimations obtained from Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) for the expanded scale with 45 items were compared with the estimations obtained from the previous scale with 31 items.

Results

The EFA lead to the removal of 13 items and the retention of 45 items. The items which the factor loadings were below 0.30 and which gave the factor loadings for more dimension were excluded from the data set. A model measured six dimensions with 45 items was hypothesized: six items under perceived susceptibility, four items under perceived severity, six items under perceived benefits, 14 items under perceived barriers, five items under cues to action, and 10 items under self-efficacy. For CFA results, all estimations for factor loadings were significant. The scale with 45 items obtained in this study fit because Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Goodness of Fit Index (GFI), and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) were over 0.95.

Conclusion

These results suggest that the scale with 45 items shows improvement in the scale with 31 items. This study indicates that the GDPB scale with 45 items based on HBM has acceptable validity and reliability. This tool can be used in disaster preparedness surveys.InalE, DoganN. Improvement of General Disaster Preparedness Belief Scale Based on Health Belief Model. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(6):627–636.

Keywords

disasterhealth belief modelimprovementpreparednessscale
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 33 , Issue 6 , December 2018 , pp. 627 - 636
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2018 

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

Conflicts of interest/financial support: This study (Project Number: 2015/BAP/125) was supported by Research Fund of the Yalova University (Yalova, Turkey).

References

1. Paton, D. Disaster preparedness: a social cognitive perspective. Disaster Prevention and Management. 2003;12(3):210-216.Google Scholar
2. Rattray, J, Jones, M. Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs. 2007;16(2):234-243.Google Scholar
3. Ardalan, A, Sohrabizadeh, S. Assessing household preparedness for earthquakes: an exploratory study in the development of a valid and reliable Persian-version tool. PLOS Curr. 2016;8.Google Scholar
4. Farley, JE, Barlow, HD, Finklestein, MS, Riley, L. Earthquake hysteria, before and after: a survey and follow-up on public response to the browning forecast. Int J Mass Emerg Dis. 1993;11(3):305-322.Google Scholar
5. Showalter, PS. Prognostication of doom: an earthquake prediction’s effect on four small communities. Int J Mass Emerg Dis. 1993;11(2):279-292.Google Scholar
6. McClure, J, Walkey, F, Allen, M. When earthquake damage is seen as preventable: attributions, locus of control and attitudes to risk, applied psychology. Int Rev. 1999;48(2):239-256.Google Scholar
7. Mileti, D, Fitzpatrick, C. The causal sequence of risk communication in the park field earthquake prediction experiment. Risk Anal. 1992;12(3):393-400.Google Scholar
8. Mulilis, JP, Duval, TS, Lippa, R. The effects of a large destructive local earthquake on earthquake preparedness as assessed by the earthquake preparedness scale. Nat Hazards. 1990;3(4):357-371.Google Scholar
9. Spittal, JW, Walkey, HF, McClure, J, Sıegert, JR, Ballantyne, EK. The earthquake readiness scale: the development of a valid and reliable unifactorial measure. Nat Hazards. 2006;39(1):15-29.Google Scholar
10. Haraoka, T, Ojima, T, Murata, C, Hayasaka, S. Factors influencing collaborative activities between non-professional disaster volunteers and victims of earthquake disasters. Plos One. 2012;7(10):e47203.Google Scholar
11. Akompab, DK, Bi, P, Williams, S, Grant, J, Walker, IA, Augoustinos, M. Heat waves and climate change: applying the Health Belief Model to identify predictors of risk perception and adaptive behaviors in Adelaide, Australia. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2013;10(6):2164-2184.Google Scholar
12. Semenza, J, Ploubidis, G, George, L. Climate change and climate variability: personal motivation for adaptation and mitigation. Environmental Health. 2011;10:46.Google Scholar
13. Ogedegbe, C, Nyirenda, T, Delmoro, G, Yamin, E, Feldman, J. Health care workers and disaster preparedness: barriers to and facilitators of willingness to respond. Int J Emerg Med. 2012;5(1):29.Google Scholar
14. Teitler-Regev, S, Shahrabani, S, Benzion, U. Factors affecting intention among students to be vaccinated against A/H1N1 Influenza: a Health Belief Model approach. Adv Prev Med. 2011;1(1):353207.Google Scholar
15. Fabry, P, Gagneur, A, and Pasquier, JC. Determinants of a (H1N1) vaccination: cross-sectional study in a population of pregnant women in Quebec. Vaccine. 2011;29(9):1824-1829 Google Scholar
16. Taylor, P, Yang, ZJ. Predicting young adults’ intentions to get the H1N1 vaccine: an integrated model. J Health Comm. 2014;20(1):69-79.Google Scholar
17. Ejeta, LT, Ardalan, A, Paton, D. Application of behavioral theories to disaster and emergency health preparedness: a systematic review. PLOS Curr. 2015;1.Google Scholar
18. Janz, NK, Champion, VL, Strecher, VJ. “The Health Belief Model.” In: Glanz R, Rimer B, Viswanath K. Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, California USA: Jossey-Bass; 2002.Google Scholar
19. Glanz, R, Rimer, B, Viswanath, K. Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research and Practice. 4th ed. San Francisco, California USA: Jossey-Bass; 2008.Google Scholar
20. Thomas, TN, Leander-Griffith, M, Harp, V, Cioffi, JP. Influences of preparedness knowledge and beliefs on household disaster preparedness. MMWR. 2015;64(35):965-971.Google Scholar
21. Becker, J, Paton, D, Johnston, D, et al. Salient beliefs about earthquake hazards and household preparedness. Risk Anal. 2013;33:1710-1727.Google Scholar
22. Inal, E, Altintas, KH, Dogan, N. The development of a general disaster preparedness belief scale using the Health Belief Model as a theoretical framework. Int J Assess Tools Educ. 2018;5(1):146-158.Google Scholar
23. Kurt, S, Haybat, S. Urban and Urbanization. In: Efe R, Onay T, Sharuho I, Atasoy E. Evaluation of Location Selection in Yalova in Terms of Geomorphologic Features and Natural Risks. Sofia, Bulgaria: Kliment Ohridski University Press; 1985: 673-689.Google Scholar
24. Akgiray, V, Barbarosoglu, G, Erdik, M. The 1999 Marmara Earthquakes in Turkey. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Lessons Learned in Dealing with Large-Scale Disasters. Annex 4. SG/AU 1/ANN4. 2003.Google Scholar
25. Davis, LL. Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts. Appl Nurs Res. 1992;5(4):194-197.Google Scholar
26. Polit, DF, Beck, CT. The content validity index: are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-497.Google Scholar
27. Petro-Nustas, W, Tsangari, H, Phellas, C, Constantinou, C. Health beliefs and practice of breast self-examination among young Cypriot women. J Transcult Nurs. 2013;24(2):180-188.Google Scholar
28. Carpenter, CJ. A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health belief model variables in predicting behavior. Health Comm. 2010;25(8):661-669.Google Scholar
29. DeVellis, RF. Scale Development Theory and Applications. 2nd ed. New York USA: SAGE Publications; 2003.Google Scholar
30. Gadermann, AM, Guhn, M, Zumbo, BD. Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: a conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2012;17(3).Google Scholar
31. Huck, SW. Reading Statistics and Research. Boston, Massachusetts USA: Pearson; 2008.Google Scholar
32. Suhr, DD. Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis? Cary, North Carolina USA: SAS Institute; 2006: 1-17.Google Scholar
33. Hooper, D, Coughlan, J, Mullen, MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electron J Business Res Meth. 2008;6(1):53-60.Google Scholar
34. Lomax, RG, Schumacker, RE. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. New York, New York USA: Routledge Academic; 2015.Google Scholar
35. Schermelleh-Engel, K, Moosbrugger, H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online. 2003;8(2):23-74.Google Scholar
36. Kaya, H, Çavuşoğlu, A, Şen, B, Çalık, E. Disaster management and disaster preparedness: examples of practices in California and Turkey. Turkish Online Journal of Science & Technology. 2014;4(4).Google Scholar
37. Inal, E, Kocagöz, S, Turan, M. Temel afet bilinç ve hazırlık düzeyinin saptanmasına yönelik bir araştırma. Türkiye Acil Tıp Dergisi - Tr J Emerg Med. 2012;12(1):15-19.Google Scholar
38. Ozsahin, E, Kaymaz, KC. An example of assessing disaster culture: Antakya City [Abstract]. Türkiye Earthquake Engineering and Seismology Conference 2013: Hatay. http://www.tdmd.org.tr/TR/Genel/pdf/TDMSK039.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2014.Google Scholar
39. Dedeoglu N. Why do we always get unprepared for disaster? An Antalya survey. Earthquake Symposium. 2005;1503-1505. http://kocaeli2007.kocaeli.edu.tr/kocaeli2005/deprem_sempozyumu_kocaeli_2005/8_deprem_ve_insan/d_52_afet_yonetimi_afete_hazirlik_ve_afet_bilinci/afetlere_niye_hep_hazirliksiz_yakalaniyoruz_bir_antalya_arastirmasi.pdf. Accessed January 7, 2014.Google Scholar
40. Sakiroglu, M. Variables Related to Earthquake Preparedness Behavior. Master Thesis. Middle East Technical University the Department of Psychology. August 2015.Google Scholar
41. Gregory, RC, Philip, DA, Erik, ADH, et al. Disaster Medicine. USA: Maryland Heights, Missouri USA: Mosby Elsevier; 2006: 29.Google Scholar
42. 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 Comm. 2010;15:428-444.Google Scholar
43. Errett, NA, Barnett, DJ, Thompson, CB, et al. Assessment of medical reserve corps volunteers’ emergency response willingness using a Threat-and-Efficacy-Based Model. Biosecur Bioterror. 2013;11(1):29-40.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Inal and Dogan supplementary material

Inal and Dogan supplementary material 1

Download Inal and Dogan supplementary material(File)
File 20.7 KB