Preparedness: Unpacking and clarifying the concept

Abstract

Crisis studies increasingly focus on developing proactive strategies to minimize the effects of unwanted occurrences and contingencies. Preparedness constitutes a key component of this approach, as many crises are difficult to prevent. However, at the conceptual and practical levels, it remains difficult to distinguish preparedness from other crisis‐related concepts. This study draws on an extensive survey of the preparedness literature with the goal of elucidating its defining attributes. The results show that preparedness can be minimally characterized as measures that are of an active, continuous and anticipatory nature. Contextually definitions, however, may also include social, planned, non‐structural or enabling conceptual attributes.

SARS-CoV-2 Epidemics in Retirement and Nursing Homes in Italy: A New Preparedness Assessment Model after the First Epidemic Wave

“…All these activities must be implemented in the planning phase. An adequate level of preparedness can be achieved only by providing all the tools necessary to develop an adequate response to the critical event [ 37 ].…”

A concept analysis of preparedness: Application to LGBTQ considerations for nursing

“…In business and economics literature discussing preparedness, most of the focus was on disaster preparedness in varying contexts such as financial loss and gains, supply chain disruptions, funding, production and inventory, and natural disasters or human‐created disasters. Within business and economics literature, conceptual understanding of preparedness is ambiguous because of the use of synonyms such as readiness and contingency planning and rarely used independently from specific concepts like disaster preparedness and emergency preparedness (Staupe‐Delgado & Kruke, 2018). Another area of business and economics that discussed preparedness was within supply chain and operational management.…”

The lived experience of UK health communication professionals during the Covid-19 pandemic

“…Outside the public relations field there is significantly more literature on pandemic communication with a number of reviews (Loud and Simpson, 2017;Infanti et al, 2013;Savoia et al, 2013;Fisher et al, 2011) and models and recommendations for effectiveness (Staupe-Delgado and Kruke, 2018;Amirkhani et al, 2016;Cairns et al, 2013;Crouse-Quinn, 2008). Much of this mirrors the main principles outlined in the public relations crisis literature on the importance and nature of dialogue (Taylor and Kent, 2014) and involving stakeholders (Coombs, 2019;Heath, 2010).…”

“…The literature (Coombes, 2019;Staupe-Delgado & Kruke, 2018;Amirkhani et al, 2016) and practitioner guidance (WHO, 2005) suggests that risk assessment, resources and preparations that enable optimal performance are crucial in the crisis preparedness phase. The results indicate that the English NHS was reasonably well prepared overall.…”