Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:07:32.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Identifying Indirect Benefits of Federal Health Care Emergency Preparedness Grant Funding to Coalitions: A Content Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2015

Chad Priest  and
Benoit Stryckman
Chad Priest*
Affiliation:
Indiana University School of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Division of Out of Hospital Care, and Indiana University Center for Law, Economics and Applied Research in Health Information, Indianapolis, Indiana
Benoit Stryckman
Affiliation:
GAP Solutions Inc. (contractor) supporting the US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Chad Priest, Indiana University School of Medicine, 410 West 10th Street, Suite 3100, Indianapolis, IN, USA 46202 (e-mail: cspriest@iu.edu).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to identify the indirect benefits of health care preparedness funding as perceived by current and former recipients of the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response’s Hospital Preparedness Program.

Methods

This was a qualitative inductive content analysis of telephone interviews conducted with regional stakeholders from several health care coalitions to identify their perceptions of the indirect benefits of preparedness funding.

Results

Content analysis of interviewee responses resulted in 2 main categories of indirect benefits of federal health care preparedness funding: (1) dual-use technology and programs and (2) impact of relationships on day-to-day operations. Within the dual-use technology and programs category, 3 subcategories were identified: (1) information systems, (2) clinical technology, and (3) health care operations. Similarly, 3 subcategories relating to the indirect benefits in the impact of relationships on day-to-day operations category were identified: (1) cooperation, (2) information sharing, and (3) sense of community.

Conclusion

This study identified indirect benefits of federal investment in hospital and health care preparedness in day-to-day operations. Major categories of these benefits included dual-use technology and programs and impact of relationships on day-to-day operations. Coalition members placed a high value on these benefits, even though they were not direct outcomes of grant programs. Further research is needed to quantify the economic value of these indirect benefits to more accurately measure the total return on investment from federal grant funding. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:704–711)

Keywords

coalitionpreparednessfundingbenefitsindirectdisasters
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 9 , Issue 6 , December 2015 , pp. 704 - 711
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. Pines, JM, Pinlkington, WF, Seabury, SA. Value-Based Models for Sustaining Emergency Preparedness Capacity and Capability in the United States. The Institute of Medicine Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events. http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/PublicHealth/MedPrep/v2Final%20white%20paper%20Preparedness%20FinancingJan14.pdf. Published January 7, 2014. Accessed July 1, 2014.Google Scholar
2. Errett, NA, Frattaroli, S, Resnick, BA, et al. Interlocal collaboration and emergency preparedness: a qualitative analysis of the impact of the Urban Area Security Initiative program. Am J Disaster Med. 2014;9(4):297-308.Google Scholar
3. US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response. Hospital Preparedness Program Overview. Public Health Emergency website. http://www.phe.gov/Preparedness/planning/hpp/Pages/overview.aspx. Accessed October 13, 2015.Google Scholar
4. Courtney, B, Toner, E, Waldhorn, R, et al. Healthcare coalitions: the new foundation for national healthcare preparedness and response for catastrophic health emergencies. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science. 2009;7(2):153-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2009.0020.Google Scholar
5. Walsh, L, Craddock, H, Gulley, K, et al. Building healthcare system capacity to respond to disasters: successes and challenges of disaster preparedness health care coalitions. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(2):1-10.Google Scholar
6. Hanfling, D. Healthcare preparedness funding: Are we inviting disaster? Health Affairs Blog. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/author/hanfling/. Published December 31. Accessed October 13, 2015.Google Scholar
7. Elo, S, Kyngäs, H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62(1):107-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x Google Scholar
8. Sandelowski, M. Qualitative analysis: what it is and how to begin. Res Nurs Health. 1995;18(4):371-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180411.Google Scholar
9. Freeman, I, Myrick, A, Herriges, JA, Kling, CL. The Measurement of Environmental Resource Values: Theory and Methods. London, United Kingdom: Routledge; 2014:20-28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Stryckman, B, Grace, TL, Schwarz, P, Marcozzi, D. An economic analysis and approach for health care preparedness in a substate region. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9(4):344-348.Google Scholar
11. Carson, RT. Contingent valuation: A practical alternative when prices aren’t available. J Econ Perspect. 2012;26(4):27-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.26.4.27.Google Scholar
12. Elo, S, Kääriäinen, M, Kanste, O, et al. Qualitative content analysis a focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open. 2014;4(1):1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2158244014522633.Google Scholar