General disaster preparedness beliefs and related sociodemographic characteristics: The example of Yalova University, Turkey
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to identify sociodemographic and disaster related factors associated with General Disaster Preparedness Belief using the Health Belief Model as a theoretical framework. Methods: The survey study was conducted in Yalova, Turkey between April and July, 2014. A prevalidated General Disaster Preparedness Belief scale instrument based on the Health Belief Model was administered to a study group of 286 academic and administrative staff. The General Disaster Preparedness Belief score was computed by summing up the six Health Belief Model subscales. Hierarchical linear regression was used to test for association between the General Disaster Preparedness Belief score and its associated factors. Results: The General Disaster Preparedness Belief score was positively associated with; higher monthly income, higher occupational status, having experienced any disaster previously and having any emergency/disaster education. Respondents who had any emergency/disaster education had on average an 19.05 higher General Disaster Preparedness Belief score as compared to respondents who had no emergency/disaster education (β=19.05±4.83, p<0.001). Furthermore, participants who had experienced any disaster had on average 21.615 higher GDPB score as compared to participants who had never experienced any disaster (β =21.62±0.32, p<0.001). Conclusions: Monthly income, occupational status, previous experiences of disasters and access to emergency/disaster education were important factors associated with General Disaster Preparedness Belief. Interventions aimed at increasing general disaster preparedness should include provision of disaster education and should target individuals with lower socioeconomic status as a priority.
Keywords
Disaster,Emergency,Health Belief Model,Preparedness,Sociodemographic characteristics
References
- 1. Donahue A, Joyce P. A Framework for Analyzing Emergency Management with an Application to Federal Budgeting. Public Administration Review 2001; 61(6):728-740.
- 2. Guha-Sapir D, Hoyois Ph, Below R. Annual Disaster Statistical Review 2013: The numbers and trends, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters CRED, Institute of Health and Society (IRSS), 2014.
- 3. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC). World Disaster Report: Focus on Technology and the Future Humanitarian Action, Geneva, 2013.
- 4. Ersoy S, Kocak A. Disasters and Earthquake Preparedness of Children and Schools in Istanbul, Turkey. Geomatics, Natural Hazards and Risks 2016; 7(4);1307-1336.
- 5. Gokce O, Ozden S, Demir A. The Statistical and Spatial Distribution of Disasters in Turkey Disaster Information Inventory Ankara. Turkish Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Disaster Research and Assessment Department, 2008, p. 118.
- 6. Ejeta L.T, Ardalan A, Paton D. Application of Behavioral Theories to Disaster and Emergency Health Preparedness: A Systematic Review. 2015. PLOS Currents Disasters Edition 1.doi:10.1371/currents.dis.31a8995ced321301466db400f1357829.
- 7. Gregory R.C, Philip D.A, Erik A.D.H, et al. Disaster Medicine. U.S.A.: Mosby Elsevier, 2006, pp.29.
- 8. Armas I, Avram E. Patterns and Trends in the Perception of Seismic Risk. Case study: Bucharest Municipality/Romania. Natural Hazards 2008;44(1):147-61.
- 9. Mulilis J.P, Duval T.S. Negative Threat Appeals and Earthquake Preparedness: A Person Relative to Event (PrE) Model of Coping with Threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 1995;25(15):1319-39.
- 10. McClure J, Walkey F, Allen M. When Earthquake Damage is Seen As Preventable: Attributions, locus of control and attitudes to risk. Applied Psychology 1999;48(2): 239-56.