Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:24:08.741Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experts’ Views on the Gaps in Public Health Emergency Preparedness in Israel: A Qualitative Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2019

Anat Gesser-Edelsburg Open the ORCID record for Anat Gesser-Edelsburg [Opens in a new window] ,
Ricky Cohen  and
Alon Diamant
Anat Gesser-Edelsburg*
Affiliation:
University of Haifa School of Public Health, The Health and Risk Communication Research Center, and The National Knowledge and Research Center for Emergency Readiness, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel
Ricky Cohen
Affiliation:
University of Haifa, School of Public Health, The Health and Risk Communication Research Center, Haifa, Israel
Alon Diamant
Affiliation:
University of Haifa, The Health and Risk Communication Research Center, Haifa, Israel
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, University of Haifa School of Public Health, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel31905 (e-mail: ageser@univ.haifa.ac.il).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Despite the significant improvement in all components of preparedness in the past decade, there are still gaps between the guidelines and the reality on the ground. The purpose of this study is to explore how Israeli public health and emergency medicine experts perceive the demands for health organization emergency preparedness and the actual practice.

Methods:

Qualitative phenomenological research. We interviewed 22 Israeli public health and emergency medicine experts face-to-face and conducted a content analysis.

Results:

The findings revealed barriers in the following areas: preparation and readiness of hospitals, preparedness and readiness in the community, connection between the community and the hospital, inter-agency coordination and interface, interdisciplinary integration, preparedness resources, postcrisis evaluation, assimilating smart technologies, information accessibility, and communication.

Conclusions:

To reduce the gap between theory and practice, retrospective research and evaluation must be included to learn in depth what strategies and resources should be used during a health crisis. Likewise, profiles should be constructed and the community should be segmented in order to design resilience programs and accommodate information to subpopulations.

Keywords

content analysiscoordinationgapsexperts’ viewsqualitative researchPublic Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP)
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 34 - 41
Copyright
Copyright © 2019 Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc.

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

REFERENCES

Levy, LA, Rokusek, CF, Bragg, SM, et al. Interdisciplinary approach to all-hazards preparedness. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2009;15(2):S8-S12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, L, Miro, S, Bookbinder, SH, et al. Innovative infrastructure in New Jersey: using health education professionals to inform and educate during a crisis. Health Promot Pract. 2008;9(4_suppl):88S-95S.Google ScholarPubMed
Murthy, BP, Molinari, NAM, LeBlanc, TT, et al. Progress in public health emergency preparedness-United States, 2001-2016. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(S2):S180-S185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CDC. Public Health Preparedness Capabilities: National Standards for State and Local Planning. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2011.Google Scholar
CDC. Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Response Capabilities: National Standards for State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Public Health. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.Google Scholar
WHO. World Health Organization Outbreak Communication Planning Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.Google Scholar
WHO. Emergency Response Framework. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.Google Scholar
WHO. International Health Emergency Response Plan: Marburg Virus Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.Google Scholar
Savoia, E, Lin, L, Bernard, D, et al. Public health system research in public health emergency preparedness in the United States (2009-2015): actionable knowledge base. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(S2):1-6.10.2105/AJPH.2017.304051CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khan, Y, Fazli, G, Henry, B, et al. The evidence base of primary research in public health emergency preparedness: a scoping review and stakeholder consultation. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:432.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ramsbottom, A, O’Brien, E, Ciotti, L, et al. Enablers and barriers to community engagement in public health emergency preparedness: a literature review. J Community Health. 2018;43(2):412-420.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toner, ES, Ravi, S, Adalja, A, et al. Doing good by playing well with others: exploring local collaboration for emergency preparedness and response. Health Secur. 2015;13(4):281-289.10.1089/hs.2015.0003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Braun, BI, Wineman, NV, Finn, NL, et al. Integrating hospitals into community emergency preparedness planning. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144(11):799-811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CDC. Public Health Preparedness and Response 2018 National Snapshot. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2018.Google Scholar
State Comptroller. Annual Control Reports for Preparedness and Readiness for Emergancy. Jerusalem: The State Comptroller and Ombudsman of Israel; 2015.Google Scholar
Padgett, DK. Qualitative and Mixed Methods in Public Health. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, JW, Hanson, WE, Clark Plano, VL, et al. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. Couns Psychol. 2007;35(2):236-264.10.1177/0011000006287390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Denzin, NK, Lincoln, YS. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2011.Google Scholar
Lombard, M, Snyder-Duch, J, Bracken, CC. Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res. 2006;28(4):587-604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V, Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in phsycology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77-101.10.1191/1478088706qp063oaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J, Strauss, A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2015.Google Scholar
FEMA. A Whole Community Approach to Emergency Management: Principles, Themes, and Pathways for Action. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security 2011. FDOC 104-008-1.Google Scholar
UNISDR. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Geneva: The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2015.Google Scholar
WHO. Strengthening Health Security by Implementing the International Health Regulations (2005). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.Google Scholar
The European Parliament and The Council of The European Union. Decision No 1082/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the council of 22 October 2013 on serious cross-border threats to health and repealing Decision No 2119/98/EC (Text with EEA relevance). Official Journal of the European Union. 2013;56:293/291-215.Google Scholar
Gesser-Edelsburg, A, Stolero, N, Mordini, E, et al. Emerging infectious disease (EID) communication during the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak: literature review (2009-2013) of the methodology used for EID communication analysis. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(2):199-206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gertler, PJ, Martinez, S, Premand, P, et al. Impact Evaluation in Practice. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: The World Bank; 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yanai, J, Weiss, S. Drug abuse primary prevention research and programs among Jewish youth in Israel: a review. Drugs Educ Prevent Policy. 1994;1(1):49-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rootman, I, Goodstadt, M, McQueen, DV, et al. Evaluation in Health Promotion Principles and Perspectives. Denemark: WHO Regional Publications; 2001.Google Scholar
Guba, EG, Lincoln, YS. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1989.Google Scholar
Kegler, MC, Redmon, PB. Using technical assistance to strengthen tobacco control capacity: evaluation findings from the Tobacco Technical Assistance Consortium. Public Health Rep. 2006;121(5):547-556.Google ScholarPubMed
Vasquez, GM, Taylor, M. Research perspectives on “the public”. In: Heath, RL, ed. Handbook of Public Relations. London: Sage; 2001:139-154.10.4135/9781452220727.n10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Transcript of virtual press conference with Gregory Hartl, Spokesperson for H1N1, and Dr Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO Director of the Initiative for Vaccine Research, World Health Organization [press release]. 2009.Google Scholar
Kotler, P, Lee, NR. Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2008.Google Scholar
Gesser-Edelsburg, A, Shir-Raz, Y, Walter, N, et al. The public sphere in emerging infectious disease communication: recipient or active and vocal partner? Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(4):447-458.10.1017/dmp.2015.31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gesser-Edelsburg, A, Mordini, E, James, JJ, et al. Risk communication recommendations and implementation during emerging infectious diseases: a case study of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2014;8(2):158-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, B. Crisis and emergency risk communication: pandemic influenza. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2007: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/cerc/resources/pdf/cerc-pandemicflu-oct07.pdf. (Accessed November 23, 2014).Google Scholar