Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:11:50.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Willingness of International Delegations to be Deployed to Areas With High Risk of Radiation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2014

Gilead Shenhar ,
Irina Radomislensky ,
Michael Rosenfeld  and
Kobi Peleg
Gilead Shenhar*
Affiliation:
Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Center for Trauma & Emergency Medicine Research, Ramat Gan, Israel Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
Irina Radomislensky
Affiliation:
Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Center for Trauma & Emergency Medicine Research, Ramat Gan, Israel
Michael Rosenfeld
Affiliation:
Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Center for Trauma & Emergency Medicine Research, Ramat Gan, Israel
Kobi Peleg
Affiliation:
Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, Center for Trauma & Emergency Medicine Research, Ramat Gan, Israel Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
*
Correspondence: Gilead Shenhar, EMBA Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research Center for Trauma & Emergency Medicine Research Tel Hasomer Sheba Medical Center Ramat Gan, 52621 Israel E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

An earthquake of 9.0 magnitude, followed by a tsunami, hit Japan in 2011 causing widespread destruction. Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant had been damaged, causing a spread of radioactive materials.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to assess personal willingness to respond to a disaster as a part of an international delegation, to an area with unknown and unclear risk of radioactive materials. The Israeli delegation to the Japan 2011 earthquake had been chosen as a case study.

Method

The survey was conducted during the first two weeks after the tsunami in Japan. The population was selected randomly. After distributing the survey form, 94 anonymous answers were received, which give a 69% participation rate. The sample was divided into two groups (participated or didn't participate in an international delegation in the past).

Results

It was found that as the situation on the ground became worse, the willingness to be deployed dropped dramatically, although no significant difference was found in willingness between the two study groups. When both groups were combined into one group, significant differences were found in their willingness to be deployed in a delegation between the three levels (no radioactive leak, possible radioactive leak, and uncontrolled leak).

Conclusions

The willingness to serve on a delegation that responds to a scene with a potential radioactive leak will be dramatically influenced by the risk at the site.

ShenharG , RadomislenskyI , RosenfeldM , PelegK . Willingness of International Delegations to be Deployed to Areas With High Risk of Radiation. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2014;29(4):1-5.

Keywords

delegationFukushimaradioactiveriskwillingness
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , August 2014 , pp. 369 - 373
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. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/recenteqsww/Quakes/usc0001xgp.php#summary. Accessed July 18, 2011.Google Scholar
2. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Japan Earthquake & Tsunami Situation Report Number 1. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/60C5286F730C9B6449257851004A922B-Full_Report.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.Google Scholar
3. NSR, Japanese Nuclear Regulation Authority. http://radioactivity.nsr.go.jp/en/contents/1000/531/24/1304324_2819.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2014.Google Scholar
4. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Japan Earthquake & Tsunami Situation Report Number 6. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/8353B696BD3AF80CC12578560045B420-Full_Report.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.Google Scholar
5. International Atomic Energy Agency, (IAEA). Staff Report Fukushima, Nuclear Accident Update Log. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html. Accessed July 15, 2011.Google Scholar
6. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Japan Earthquake & Tsunami Situation Report Number 5. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/EB319587637AF7EFC1257855003FD2F4-Full_Report.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011.Google Scholar
7. 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 ScholarPubMed
8. Qureshi, K, Gershon, RR, Sherman, MF, et al. Health care workers ability and willingness to report to duty during catastrophic disaster. J Urban Health. 2005;82(3):378-388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. DiMaggio C, Markenson D, Redlener I, et al. Biosecurity and bioterrorism: biodefense strategy, practice, and science. 2005;3(4):331-337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. 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
11. Lanzilotti, SS, Galanis, D, Leoni, N, Craig, B. Hawaii medical professionals assessment. Hawaii Med J. 2002;61(8):162-173.Google ScholarPubMed
12. Mackler, N, Wilkerson, W, Linti, S. Will first-responders show up for work during a pandemic? Lessons from a smallpox vaccination survey of paramedics. Disaster Manag Response. 2007;5(2):45-48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Hope, K, et al. Willingness of frontline health care workers to work during a public health emergency. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management. 2010;25(3):39-47.Google Scholar
14. Balicer, RD, Catlett, CL, Barnett, DJ, et al. Characterizing hospital workers willingness to respond to a radiological event. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(10):e25327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Koh, D, Lim, MK, Chia, SE, et al. Risk perception and impact of sever acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) on work and personal lives of healthcare workers in Singapore. What can we learn? Medical Cure. 2005;43(7):676-682.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Masterson, L, Steffen, C, Brin, M, Kordick, MF, Christos, S. Willingness to respond: of emergency department personnel and their predicted participation in mass casualty terrorist event. J Emerg Med. 2009;36(1):43-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Renynolds, B, Seeger, MW. Crisis & emergency risk communication as an integrative model. J Health Commun. 2005;10(1):43-55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Iserson, KV, Heine, CE, Larkin, GL, Moskop, JC, Baruch, J, Aswegan, AL. Fight or flight: the ethics of emergency physician disaster response. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;51(4):345-353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed