Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T21:17:02.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Risk and Protective Factors that Impact Survival in Emergencies—The Time Has Come for an Upgrade in Preventive Emergency Population Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Bruria Adini ,
Robert Cohen  and
Yaron Bar-Dayan
Bruria Adini
Affiliation:
Emergency and Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Health, Israel Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel University Center for the Research of Preparedness and Response to Emergency and Disaster Situations, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel
Robert Cohen
Affiliation:
Emergency and Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Health, Israel University Center for the Research of Preparedness and Response to Emergency and Disaster Situations, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel Center for Medical Education, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
Yaron Bar-Dayan*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel University Center for the Research of Preparedness and Response to Emergency and Disaster Situations, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel Meir Medical Center, Israel
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Mapping risk and protective factors that may result in increased chances of survival or a decrease in injuries and fatalities in mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) is an important component in the process of emergency preparedness. While expert risk analyses are based on calculations of probability and damage, public estimates of risks more often are based on qualitative factors. It is important to understand how the public, and not just professional experts, perceive and react to the threat of MCIs whether they stem from natural causes or terrorism. Glenshaw et al provide valuable insight into the impressions and responses of a sample of individuals, both injured and uninjured who were involved in the Oklahoma City bombing. Their analysis helps us better understand what factors influenced the risk of injury to the individuals involved in the event. The main risk factor themes that emerged from the analysis included environmental glass, debris, and entrapment. Protective factors included knowledge of egress routes, shielding behaviors to deflect debris, and survival training. Building design and health status were reported as both risk and protective factors.

Type
Editorial Comments
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 23 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 507 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2008

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.Jenkin, CM: Risk perception and terrorism: Applying the psychometric paradigm. Homeland Security Affairs 2006 July; 2.Google Scholar
2.Glenshaw, MT, Vernick, JS, Frattaroli, S, et al. : Injury perceptions of bombing survivors—Interviews from the Oklahoma City bombing. Prehospital Disast Med 2008;23(6):490–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Health Emergencies and Disasters: A multi-sectoral round table discussion and focus group discussion. July 2006, Davao, Philippines. Available at http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/sf/rtd1.pdf. Accessed 06 September 2008.Google Scholar
4.Winerman, L: Fighting fire with psychology. Monitor on Psychology 2004;35(8):28–31.Google Scholar
5.O'Boyle, C., Robertson, C., Secor-Turner, M: Public health emergencies: nurses' recommendations for effective actions. AAOHN J 2006;54(8):347–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Savoia, E, Stoto, MA, Biddinger, PD, et al. : Risk-communication capability for public health emergencies varies by community diversity. BMC Res Note 2008;7(1):6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Bar-Dayan, Y: Home Front Command activity in the Israeli health care system during the Second Lebanon War. JIMM 2007;4(1):23–27.Google Scholar
8.Glenshaw, MT, Vernick, JS, Li, G, et al. : Preventing fatalities in building bombings: what can we learn from the Oklahoma City bombing? Disaster Med Public Health Prep.2007;1(1):27–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Ellidokuz, H, Ucku, R, Aydin, UY, Ellidokuz, E: Risk factors for death and injuries in earthquake: cross-sectional study from Afyon, Turkey. Croat Med J 2005;46(4):613–618.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Chou, YJ, Huang, N, Lee, CH, et al. : Who is at risk of death in an earthquake? Am J Epidemiol 2004;160(7):688–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Zhu, BL, Ishikawa, T, Quan, L, Oritani, S, Li, DR, Zhao, D, et al. : Possible factors contributing to the postmortem lung weight in fire fatalities. Leg Med 2005;7(3):139–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Donner, WR: The political ecology of disaster: An analysis of factors influencing U.S. tornado fatalities and injuries, 1998–2000. Demography 2007;44(3):669–685.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Martin, JL, Lafont, S, Chiron, M, et al. : Differences between males and females in traffic accident risk in France. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 2004;52(4):357–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Bogen, KT, Jones, ED: Risks of mortality and morbidity from worldwide terrorism: 1968–2004. Risk Anal 2006;26(1):45–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed