Search

AbstractBackgroundThis study examined the association between self-reported levels of household disaster preparedness and a range of physical and mental health quality of life outcomes.MethodsData collected from 14 states participating in a large state-based telephone survey were analyzed (n = 104 654). Household disaster-preparedness items included having a 3-day supply of food, water, and prescription medications; a working battery-powered radio and flashlight; an evacuation plan; and a willingness to evacuate when instructed to do so. Quality-of-life items were categorized into 2 domains: physical health (general health, unhealthy physical days, and activity-limited days) and mental health (unhealthy mental days, social and emotional support, and life satisfaction).ResultsPersons with self-reported impaired mental health were generally less likely to report being prepared for a disaster than those who did not report impairment in each domain. Persons with low life satisfaction were among the least likely to be prepared, followed by those with inadequate social and emotional support, and then by those with frequent mental distress. Persons reporting physical impairments also reported deficits in many of the preparedness items. However, after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, some of the associations were attenuated and no longer significant.ConclusionPersons reporting impaired quality of life are vulnerable to increased mental and physical distress during a disaster, and their vulnerability is compounded if they are ill-prepared. Therefore, persons reporting impaired quality of life should be included in the list of vulnerable populations that need disaster preparedness and response outreach.

ABSTRACTObjective:The Cities Readiness Initiative is a federally funded program designed to assist 72 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in preparing to dispense life-saving medical countermeasures within 48 hours of a public health emergency. Beginning in 2008, the 72 MSAs were required to conduct 3 drills related to the distribution and dispensing of emergency medical countermeasures. The report describes the results of the first year of pilot data for medical countermeasure drills conducted by the MSAs.Methods:The MSAs were provided templates with key metrics for 5 functional elements critical for a successful dispensing campaign: personnel call down, site activation, facility setup, pick-list generation, and dispensing throughput. Drill submissions were compiled into single data sets for each of the 5 drills. Analyses were conducted to determine whether the measures were comparable across business and non-business hours. Descriptive statistics were computed for each of the key metrics identified in the 5 drills.Results:Most drills were conducted on Mondays and Wednesdays during business hours (8:00 am-5:00 pm). The median completion time for the personnel call-down drill was 1 hour during business hours (n = 287) and 55 minutes during non-business hours (n = 136). Site-activation drills were completed in a median of 30 minutes during business hours and 5 minutes during non-business hours. Facility setup drills were completed more rapidly during business hours (75 minutes) compared with non-business hours (96 minutes). During business hours, pick lists were generated in a median of 3 minutes compared with 5 minutes during non-business hours. Aggregate results from the dispensing throughput drills demonstrated that the median observed throughput during business hours (60 people/h) was higher than that during non-business hours (43 people/h).Conclusion:The results of the analyses from this pilot sample of drill submissions provide a baseline for the determination of a national standard in operational capabilities for local jurisdictions to achieve in their planning efforts for a mass dispensing campaign during an emergency.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:357–362)

AbstractObjectives:Community indicators for physical activity were conceptualised by assessing citizens' perceived barriers and supports for physical activity within their community. Suggestions regarding community improvements by multiple sectors of the community (government, non-profit organisations, voluntary organisations, private organisations and leisure time organisations) were also elicited from the study participants.Design:An exploratory study using qualitative methods was designed using the socio-ecological framework to guide question development. A purposive sample to reflect the community's demographics was selected. Attention was given to within-group homogeneity. Data were collected during a three-month period.Setting:The research was conducted in a southeastern US city of approximately 45,000 residents within a county of over 100,000 residents.Methods:An experienced, Master's level moderator facilitated six focus groups (n=53). The discussions were tape recorded and supplemented with detailed notes. Concepts were extracted by qualitative coding and analysis.Results:Barriers included availability/accessibility of facilities; low social support and few social models; time constraints; racial/cultural barriers; safety; lack of infrastructure (sidewalk, trails); and lack of community walkability. Supports included public and private facilities, good climate, and programming at many venues. Suggestions for change include public education, advocacy efforts, infrastructure improvement and supportive policy change.Conclusions:The socio-ecological model is an effective tool for conceptualising information about the many influences on and indicators for physical activity behaviour because it gives equal attention to each level of potential influence on physical activity behaviour (intrapersonal, interpersonal, organisational, community and policy/societal). The focus group process is an effective means for citizens to identify the factors affecting their physical activity behaviour because it solicits responses about participants' lived experiences without the restricted response categories that quantitative methods impose. Findings are relevant to intervention planning to increase physical activity. Participation in focus group research may also stimulate an interest for action towards community change.

IMPORTANCE: Comprehensive surveillance of e-cigarette use behaviors among youth is important for informing strategies to address this public health epidemic. OBJECTIVE: To characterize e-cigarette use behaviors among US youth in 2020. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The 2020 National Youth Tobacco Survey, a nationally representative, cross-sectional, school-based survey of middle school (grades 6-8) and high school (grades 9-12) students, was conducted from January 16, 2020, to March 16, 2020. A total of 14?531 students from 180 schools participated in the 2020 survey, yielding a corresponding student-level participation rate of 87.4% and school-level participation rate of 49.9%. The overall response rate, a product of the school-level and student-level participation rates, was 43.6%. EXPOSURES: Current (past 30-day) e-cigarette use. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Self-reported current e-cigarette use behaviors (frequency of use, usual e-cigarette brand, and access source) by school level and flavored e-cigarette use and flavor types among current e-cigarette users by school level and device type. Prevalence estimates were weighted to account for the complex survey design. RESULTS: Overall, 14?531 students completed the survey, including 7330 female students and 7133 male students with self-reported grade level and sex. In 2020, 19.6% (95% CI, 17.2%-22.2%) of high school students and 4.7% (95% CI, 3.6%-6.0%) of middle school students reported current e-cigarette use. Among them, 38.9% (95% CI, 35.2%-42.6%) of high school users and 20.0% (95% CI, 16.0%-24.8%) of middle school users reported e-cigarette use on 20 to 30 days within the past 30 days. Among current users, JUUL was the most commonly reported usual brand (high school: 25.4%; 95% CI, 18.8%-33.4%; middle school: 35.1%; 95% CI, 27.9%-43.1%). Among current users, the most common source of obtaining e-cigarettes was from a friend (high school: 57.1%; 95% CI, 52.6%-61.4%; middle school: 58.9%; 95% CI, 51.4%-66.1%). Among current users, 84.7% (95% CI, 82.2%-86.9%) of high school students and 73.9% (95% CI, 66.9%-79.8%) of middle school students reported flavored e-cigarette use. Fruit-flavored e-cigarettes were the most commonly reported flavor among current exclusive e-cigarette users of prefilled pods or cartridges (67.3%; 95% CI, 60.9%-73.0%), disposable e-cigarettes (85.8%; 95% CI, 79.8%-90.3%), and tank-based devices (82.7%; 95% CI, 68.9%-91.1%), followed by mint-flavored e-cigarettes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These results suggest that although current e-cigarette use decreased during 2019 to 2020, overall prevalence, frequent use, and flavored e-cigarette use remained high. Continued actions are warranted to prevent and reduce e-cigarette use among US youth.