Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part II: The Disaster Health Conceptual Framework Revisited

Birnbaum, Marvin L.; Daily, Elaine K.; O’Rourke, Ann P.; Loretti, Alessandro

doi:10.1017/s1049023x15005130

Cited by 20 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 A series of risks have been incorporated into the revised disaster Conceptual Framework (Figure VIII-1) and comprise a Disaster Risk Cascade. 10 A series of risks have been incorporated into the revised disaster Conceptual Framework (Figure VIII-1) and comprise a Disaster Risk Cascade.…”

Section: Risk ¼ Event Likelihood Event Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 A series of risks have been incorporated into the revised disaster Conceptual Framework (Figure VIII-1) and comprise a Disaster Risk Cascade. 10 In the initial version of the Guidelines, only two categories of risks associated with the presence of a hazard were proposed: (1) the risk that the hazard will cause an event; and (2) a formula for the probability (risk) that damage will occur. 10 In the initial version of the Guidelines, only two categories of risks associated with the presence of a hazard were proposed: (1) the risk that the hazard will cause an event; and (2) a formula for the probability (risk) that damage will occur.…”

Section: Risk ¼ Event Likelihood Event Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part VIII: Risk, Risk Reduction, Risk Management, and Capacity Building

Birnbaum

Loretti

Daily³

et al. 2016

Prehosp. Disaster med.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a cascade of risks associated with a hazard evolving into a disaster that consists of the risk that: (1) a hazard will produce an event; (2) an event will cause structural damage; (3) structural damage will create functional damages and needs; (4) needs will create an emergency (require use of the local response capacity); and (5) the needs will overwhelm the local response capacity and result in a disaster (ie, the need for outside assistance). Each step along the continuum/cascade can be characterized by its probability of occurrence and the probability of possible consequences of its occurrence, and each risk is dependent upon the preceding occurrence in the progression from a hazard to a disaster. Risk-reduction measures are interventions (actions) that can be implemented to: (1) decrease the risk that a hazard will manifest as an event; (2) decrease the amounts of structural and functional damages that will result from the event; and/or (3) increase the ability to cope with the damage and respond to the needs that result from an event. Capacity building increases the level of resilience by augmenting the absorbing and/or buffering and/or response capacities of a community-at-risk. Risks for some hazards vary by the context in which they exist and by the Societal System(s) involved. Birnbaum ML , Loretti A , Daily EK , O'Rourke AP . Research and evaluations of the health aspects of disasters, part VIII: risk, risk reduction, risk management, and capacity building. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2016;31(3):300-308.

show abstract

Section: Risk ¼ Event Likelihood Event Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk ¼ Event Likelihood Event Consequencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part VIII: Risk, Risk Reduction, Risk Management, and Capacity Building

Birnbaum

Loretti

Daily³

et al. 2016

Prehosp. Disaster med.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Detailed descriptions of each of these Frameworks are provided in subsequent papers in this series. 7,12,20 Interventional Disaster Research Interventional research involves the evaluation of disaster-related interventions whether they are directed at relief, recovery, hazard mitigation, capacity building, or performance. Evaluations are used to determine the value of an intervention and for comparisons.…”

Section: The Societal Framework 7 In Epidemiological Research (Who?)-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the goals and objectives differ, the processes used to evaluate interventions provided before, during, or after a disaster are quite similar. Interventional disaster evaluations incorporate the use of the Conceptual, 20 Temporal, 12 and Societal 7 Frameworks, as well as the DLM, 4 and the Relief/Recovery 5 and Risk-Reduction Frameworks. 6 The Disaster Logic Model-A logic model is a graphic representation of a program [project] that depicts the intended relationships between investments and results.…”

Section: The Societal Framework 7 In Epidemiological Research (Who?)-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part I: An Overview

Birnbaum

Daily²,

O’Rourke

et al. 2015

Prehosp. Disaster med.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ultimate goals of conducting disaster research are to obtain information to: (1) decrease risks that a hazard will produce a disaster; (2) decrease the mortality associated with disasters; (3) decrease the morbidity associated with disasters; and (4) enhance recovery of the affected community. And decrease the risks that a hazard will produce a disaster. Two principal, but inter-related, branches of disaster research are: (1) Epidemiological; and (2) Interventional. Epidemiological research explores the relationships and occurrences that comprise a disaster from a particular event. Interventional research involves evaluations of interventions, whether they are directed at relief, recovery, hazard mitigation, capacity building, or performance. In response to the need for the discipline of Disaster Health to build its science on data that are generalizeable and comparable, a Disaster Logic Model (DLM) and a set of five Frameworks have been developed to structure the information and research of the health aspects of disasters. These Frameworks consist of the: (1) Conceptual; (2) Temporal; (3) Societal; (4) Relief/Recovery; and (5) Risk-Reduction Frameworks. The Frameworks provide a standardized format for studying and comparing the epidemiology of disasters, and with the addition of the DLM, for evaluating the interventions (responses) provided prior to, during, and following a disaster, especially as they relate to the health status of the people affected by, or at-risk for, a disaster. Critical to all five Frameworks is the inclusion of standardized definitions of the terms. The Conceptual Framework describes the progression of a hazard that becomes an event, which causes structural damage, which, in turn, results in compromised, decreased, or losses of function(s) (functional damage) that, in turn, produce needs that lead to an emergency or a disaster. The Framework incorporates a cascade of risks that lead from the presence of a hazard to the development of a disaster. Risk is the likelihood that each of the steps leading from a hazard to a disaster will take place, as well as the probabilities of consequences of each of the elements in the Conceptual Framework. The Temporal Framework describes this chronological progression as phases in order of their appearance in time; some may occur concurrently. In order to study and compare the effects of an event on the complex amalgam that constitutes a community, the essential functions of a community have been deconstructed into 13 Societal Systems that comprise the Societal Framework. These diverse, but inter-related, Societal Systems interface with each other through a 14th System, Coordination and Control. The DLM can be used to identify the effects, costs, outcomes, and impacts of any intervention. Both the Relief/Recovery and Risk-Reduction Frameworks are based on the DLM. The Relief/Recovery Framework provides the structure necessary to systematically evaluate the processes involved in interventions provided during the Relief or Recovery phases of a disaster....

show abstract

“…The most prominent examples are the disaster logic model and the five frameworks developed by Birnbaum and colleagues [4–8]. They provide a systematic approach to assess the how and why disaster interventions lead to specific outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring and evaluation of disaster response efforts undertaken by local health departments: a rapid realist review

Gossip

Gouda

Lee

et al. 2017

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundLocal health departments are often at the forefront of a disaster response, attending to the immediate trauma inflicted by the disaster and also the long term health consequences. As the frequency and severity of disasters are projected to rise, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) efforts are critical to help local health departments consolidate past experiences and improve future response efforts. Local health departments often conduct M&E work post disaster, however, many of these efforts fail to improve response procedures.MethodsWe undertook a rapid realist review (RRR) to examine why M&E efforts undertaken by local health departments do not always result in improved disaster response efforts. We aimed to complement existing frameworks by focusing on the most basic and pragmatic steps of a M&E cycle targeted towards continuous system improvements. For these purposes, we developed a theoretical framework that draws on the quality improvement literature to ‘frame’ the steps in the M&E cycle. This framework encompassed a M&E cycle involving three stages (i.e., document and assess, disseminate and implement) that must be sequentially completed to learn from past experiences and improve future disaster response efforts. We used this framework to guide our examination of the literature and to identify any context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations which describe how M&E may be constrained or enabled at each stage of the M&E cycle.ResultsThis RRR found a number of explanatory CMO configurations that provide valuable insights into some of the considerations that should be made when using M&E to improve future disaster response efforts. Firstly, to support the accurate documentation and assessment of a disaster response, local health departments should consider how they can: establish a culture of learning within health departments; use embedded training methods; or facilitate external partnerships. Secondly, to enhance the widespread dissemination of lessons learned and facilitate inter-agency learning, evaluation reports should use standardised formats and terminology. Lastly, to increase commitment to improvement processes, local health department leaders should possess positive leadership attributes and encourage shared decision making.ConclusionThis study is among the first to conduct a synthesis of the CMO configurations which facilitate or hinder M&E efforts aimed at improving future disaster responses. It makes a significant contribution to the disaster literature and provides an evidence base that can be used to provide pragmatic guidance for improving M&E efforts of local health departments.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2015:CRD42015023526.

show abstract

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part II: The Disaster Health Conceptual Framework Revisited

Cited by 20 publications

References 9 publications

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part VIII: Risk, Risk Reduction, Risk Management, and Capacity Building

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part VIII: Risk, Risk Reduction, Risk Management, and Capacity Building

Research and Evaluations of the Health Aspects of Disasters, Part I: An Overview

Monitoring and evaluation of disaster response efforts undertaken by local health departments: a rapid realist review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About