Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:10:30.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attitudes and Perceptions of Urban African Americans of a “Dirty Bomb” Radiological Terror Event: Results of a Qualitative Study and Implications for Effective Risk Communication

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2015

Sarah Bauerle Bass ,
Judith R. Greener ,
Dominique Ruggieri ,
Claudia Parvanta ,
Gabriella Mora ,
Caitlin Wolak ,
Rebecca Normile  and
Thomas F. Gordon
Sarah Bauerle Bass*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Judith R. Greener
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Dominique Ruggieri
Affiliation:
Department of Health Services, St. Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Claudia Parvanta
Affiliation:
Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of the Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Gabriella Mora
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Caitlin Wolak
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Rebecca Normile
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health, Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Thomas F. Gordon
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts-Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts.
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Dr Sarah Bauerle Bass, Temple University, Department of Public Health, 1301 Cecil B. Moore Avenue, Room 951, Philadelphia, PA 19122 (e-mail: [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

Radiological terror presents a real threat, but little is known about how low-income, urban African Americans may respond to such threats. The aim of this study was to understand the unique challenges of this group and to explore their knowledge of what a “dirty bomb” is, their intended behaviors should one occur, and their barriers to complying with “shelter in place” recommendations.

Methods

Thirty-seven 18-65-year-olds who were users of community centers in disadvantaged areas participated in 3 focus groups in Philadelphia. Results were analyzed by using the Krueger method of analyzing narrative text.

Results

The responses highlighted little knowledge or concern about a dirty bomb. Lack of trust in local authorities was expressed, with participants indicating that they did not feel their needs were addressed. While shelter in place was understood, most said they would still check on family or talk with others to get the “whole truth” because the most trusted information sources were neighbors and community leaders.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that a risk communication intervention for urban minorities may support desirable behaviors in the event of a dirty bomb, but successful communication will require establishing a local leader as a spokesperson to convince people of the importance of sheltering in place.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;0:1-10)

Keywords

radiological terrorrisk communicationurbanshelter in place
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 9 - 18
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.Public Health Preparedness: Strengthening CDC’s Emergency Response. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.cdc.gov/phpr/pubs-links/2009/. Published January 16, 2009. Accessed May 20, 2013.Google Scholar
2.Becker, S. Emergency communication and information issues in terrorist events involving radioactive materials. Biosecur Bioterror. 2004;2(3):195-207.Google Scholar
3.Slovic, P. Perception of risk from radiation. In: Slovic P, ed. The Perception of Risk. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd; 2001:264-274.Google Scholar
4.Nutbeam, D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. 2006;15(3):259-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Rosa, EA, Freudenberg, WR. The historical development of public reactions in nuclear power: implications for nuclear waste policy. In: Dunlap RE, Kraft ME, Rosa EA, eds. Public Reactions to Nuclear Waste: Citizen’s Views of Repository Siting. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1993:32-63.Google Scholar
6.Blendon, RJ, Benson, MM, DesRoches, CM, et al. The impact of anthrax attacks on the American public. Medscape General Medicine website. 2002:4(2). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/430197. Accessed May 30, 3013.Google Scholar
7.Blendon, RJ, Benson, JM, DesRoches, CM, et al. Using opinion surveys to track the public’s response to a bioterrorist attack. J Health Commun. 2003;8:83-92.Google Scholar
8.Meredith, L, Eisenman, D, Rhodes, H, et al. Trust influences response to public health messages during a bioterrorist event. J Health Commun. 2007;12(3):217-232.Google Scholar
9.Wray, RS, Becker, N, Henderson, D, et al. Communicating with the public about emerging health threats: lessons from pre-event message development project. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(12):2214-2222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Wray, R, Rivers, J, Whitworth, A, et al. Public perceptions about trust in emergency risk communication: qualitative research findings. Int J Mass Emerg Disaster. 2006;24(1):45-75.Google Scholar
11.Lasker, RD.Redefining Readiness: Terrorism Planning Through the Eyes of the Public. New York: New York Academy of Medicine; 2004.Google Scholar
12.Marist College Institute for Public Opinion. How Americans feel about terrorism and security two years after 9/11. Survey conducted on behalf of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness and the Children’s Health Fund. Marist Poll website. 2003. http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu. Accessed May 10, 2013.Google Scholar
13.Vanderford, ML, Nastoff, T, Telfer, JL, et al. Emergency communication challenges in response to Hurricane Katrina: lessons from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. J Appl Commun Res. 2007;35(1):9-25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.James, X, Hawkins, A, Rowel, R. An assessment of the cultural appropriateness of emergency preparedness communication for low income minorities. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 2007;4(3):1547-7355.Google Scholar
15.Conklin, WC, Liotta, P. Radiological threat assessment and the federal response plan – a gap analysis. Health Phys. 2005;89(5):457-470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.US Department of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. Country reports on terrorism 2010. US Department of State website. http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/index.htm. Accessed June 2, 2013.Google Scholar
17.International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear safety review 2013. IAEA website. http://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC57/GC57InfDocuments/English/gc57inf-3_en.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2013.Google Scholar
18.International Atomic Energy Agency. Inadequate control of world’s radioactive sources. Press release PR 2002/09. IAEA website. http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/2002/prn0209.shtml. Published June 24, 2002. Accessed May 15, 2013.Google Scholar
19.US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Fact sheet on dirty bombs. US NRC website. http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-dirty-bombs.html. Published December 2012. Accessed May 14, 2013.Google Scholar
20.Nuclear Terrorism and Countermeasures: Hearing Before the Military Research and Development Subcommittee of the Committee on National Security, House of Representatives, 105th Cong, 1st Sess (1997).Google Scholar
21.Eisenman, DP, Wold, C, Setodji, C, et al. Will public health’s response to terrorism be fair? racial/ethnic variations in perceived fairness during a bioterrorist event. Biosecur Bioterror. 2004;2(3):146-156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.National Research Council. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1989.Google Scholar
23.Sandman, PM.. Hazard versus outrage in the public perception of risk. In: Covello VT, McCallum DB, Pavlova MT, eds. Effective Risk Communication: The Role and Responsibility of Government and Nongovernment Organizations. New York: Plenum Press; 1989:45-49.Google Scholar
24.Sharp, EB, Johnson, PE. Accounting for variation in distrust of local police. Justice Q. 2009;26(1):157-182.Google Scholar
25.Marschall, M, Shah, PR. The attitudinal effects of minority incorporation examining the racial dimensions of trust in urban America. Urban Aff Rev. 2007;42(5):629-658.Google Scholar
26.US Census Bureau. Census Interactive Population Map, Data access tools. US Census 2010 website. www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/. Accessed June 2, 2013.Google Scholar
27.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Radiation emergencies. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation. Accessed May 15, 2013.Google Scholar
28.Krueger, RA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. CA: Sage Publications; 1994.Google Scholar
29.Rabiee, F. Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proc Nutr Soc. 2004;63:655-660.Google Scholar
30.Krueger, RA, Casey, MA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide For Applied Research, 3rd ed.Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications; 2000.Google Scholar
31.Becker, S. Addressing the psychosocial and communication challenges posed by radiological/nuclear terrorism: key developments since NCRP report. Health Phys. 2005;89(5):521-530.Google Scholar
32.Sandman, PM. Responding to Community Outrage: Strategies for Effective Risk Communication. AIHA Press; 1993. www.psandman.com/media/RespondingtoCommunityOutrage.pdf. Accessed May 20, 2013.Google Scholar