Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:19:58.316Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

School Closure Decisions Made by Local Health Department Officials During the 2009 H1N1 Influenza Outbreak

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2015

Harvey Kayman Open the ORCID record for Harvey Kayman [Opens in a new window] ,
Sarah Salter ,
Maanvi Mittal ,
Winifred Scott ,
Nicholas Santos ,
Diana Tran  and
Ryan Ma
Harvey Kayman*
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, University of California School of Public Health, Berkeley, California
Sarah Salter
Affiliation:
University of California Goldman School of Public Policy, Berkeley, California
Maanvi Mittal
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, California
Winifred Scott
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology, University of California School of Public Health, Berkeley, California
Nicholas Santos
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, California
Diana Tran
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, California
Ryan Ma
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley, California
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Harvey Kayman, MD, MPH, 1301 Quarry Court #404, Richmond, CA 94801 ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives

The goal of this study was to gain insights into the decision-making processes used by California public health officials during real-time crises. The decision-making processes used by California public health officials during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic were examined by a survey research team from the University of California Berkeley.

Methods

The survey was administered to local public health officials in California. Guidelines published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had recommended school closure, and local public health officials had to decide whether to follow these recommendations. Chi-squared tests were used to make comparisons in the descriptive statistics.

Results

The response rate from local public health departments was 79%. A total of 73% of respondents were involved in the decision-making process. Respondents stated whether they used or did not use 15 ethical, logistical, and political preselected criteria. They expressed interest in receiving checklists and additional training in decision-making.

Conclusions

Public health decision-makers do not appear to have a standard process for crisis decision-making and would benefit from having an organized decision-making model. The survey showed that ethical, logistical, and political criteria were considered but were not prioritized in any meaningful way. A new decision-making tool kit for public health decision-makers plus implementation training is warranted. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2015;9:464–471)

Keywords

Boyd (OODA) loopdecision-makingorganizationalemergency respondersethicsintuition
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 9 , Supplement 4 , August 2015 , pp. 464 - 471
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. Cauchemez, S, Ferguson, NM, Wachtel, C, et al. Closure of schools during an influenza pandemic. Lancet Infect Dis. 2009;9:473-481.Google Scholar
2. Driver, J. The History of Utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/utilitarianism-history/. First published March 27, 2009. Accessed June 18, 2014.Google Scholar
3. ForestService. The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number. A Forest Service Centennial Film. Forest Service website. http://www.fs.fed.us/greatestgood/press/mediakit/facts/pinchot.shtml. Accessed June 18, 2014.Google Scholar
4. Flu.gov. History of H1N1 and other pandemics. Flu.gov website. http://www.flu.gov/pandemic/history/. Accessed October 27, 2012.Google Scholar
5. Angerman, WS. Coming Full Circle With Boyd’s OODA Loop Ideas: An Analysis of Innovative Diffusion and Evolution. Master’s thesis. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a425228.pdf. Published May 23, 2004. Accessed April 18, 2013.Google Scholar
6. Huder, RC. in Disaster Operations and Decision Making. pages 19-37. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/book/10.1002/9781118178539;jsessionid=647DBFB934932D9A7DC7F1A9C1320C4C.f02t01. Published online February 28, 2012. Accessed November 3, 2013.Google Scholar
7. Boyd, J. The OODA or Boyd Loop in Performance, Learning, Leadership, & Knowledge Web site. http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leadership/ooda.html. Accessed November 8, 2012.Google Scholar
8. Qualtrics [computer program]. Version 2012. United Kingdom: Qualtrics, LLC; 2012. www.qualtrics.com. Accessed June 1, 2015.Google Scholar
9. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12 [computer program] College Station, TX: StataCorp LP; 2011.Google Scholar
10. Lieberman, MD, Jarcho, JM, Satpute, AB. Evidence-based and intuition-based self-knowledge: an fMRI Study. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;87:421-435.Google Scholar
11. Gilmour, D, Hanna, J, Mc Keever, W Jr, et al. Military Course of Action Model. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/afrl/real-time_coa_analysis.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2012.Google Scholar
12. US Army. The Military Decision-Making Process. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/fm101-5_mdmp.pdf. Published 2000. Accessed October 27, 2012.Google Scholar
13. Manketlow, J. The Mind Tools Guide to Group Decision Making. https://ejerciciosmentales.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/groupdecisionmakingguide1.pdf. Published 2009. Accessed April 18, 2013.Google Scholar
14. Dalkey, N. The Delphi Method: An experimental Study of Group Opinion RM-5888-PR http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2005/RM5888.pdf. Rand Corporation; June 1969. Accessed April 18, 2013.Google Scholar
15. Smith, W. Cost-Effectiveness and cost-benefit analysis for public health programs. Public Health Rep. 1968;83:899-906.Google Scholar
16. The Skilled Group Leader. Multivoting website. http://www.ca.uky.edu/agpsd/multivot.pdf. Accessed November 8, 2012.Google Scholar
17. Kahneman, D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011.Google Scholar
18. Khatri, N, Alvin, H. The role of intuition in strategic decision making. Hum Relat. 2000;53:57-86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Kahneman, D, Klein, G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol. 2009;64:515-526.Google Scholar
20. Klein, G, Snowden, D, Pin, CL. Anticipatory thinking. In: Mosier KL, Fischer UM, eds. Informed by Knowledge: Expert Performance in Complex Situations. New York: Psychology Press; 2011:235-245.Google Scholar
21. Gigerenzer, G, Gaissmaier, W. Heuristic Decision Making. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:451-482.Google Scholar
22. Schwenk, CR. Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-making. Strateg Manag J. 1984;5:111-128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23. Your Dictionary. Rule of thumb. http://www.yourdictionary.com/rule-of-thumb. Accessed June 18, 2014.Google Scholar
24. Higgins, JW, Strange, K, Scarr, J, et al. “It’s a feel. That’s what a lot of our evidence would consist of”: public health practitioners’ perspectives on evidence. Eval Health Prof. 2011;34:278-296.Google Scholar
25. Mikels, JA, Maglio, SJ, Reed, AE, et al. Should I go with my gut? Investigating the benefits of emotion-focused decision making. Emot Emot. 2011;11:743-753.Google Scholar
26. Beauchamp, TL, Childress, JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 6th ed New York: Oxford University Press; 2009.Google Scholar
27. Thompson, AK, Gibson, JL, Upshur, RE, et al. Pandemic influenza preparedness: an ethical framework to guide decision-making. BMC Med Ethics. 2006;7:1-11.Google Scholar
28. McDevitt, R, Giapponi, C, Tromley, C. A model of ethical decision making: the integration of process and content. J Bus Ethics. 2006;73:219-229.Google Scholar
29. Lee, LM. Public health ethics theory: review and path to convergence. J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40:85-98.Google Scholar
30. Haidt, J. The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev. 2001;108:814-834.Google Scholar
31. Van den Bossche, P, Gijselaers, W, Segers, M, et al. Team learning: building shared mental models. Instr Sci. 2011;39:283-301.Google Scholar
32. Druskat, VU, Wollf, SB. Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harv Bus Rev. 2001;79:80-90.Google ScholarPubMed
33. Tuckman, B. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965;63:384-399.Google Scholar
34. Saaty, TL. How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur J Oper Res. 1990;48:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Poland, GA, Marcuse, EK. Developing vaccine policy: attributes of just policy and a proposed template to guide decision and policy making. Vaccine. 2011;29:7577-7578.Google Scholar
36. Field, RI, Caplan, AL. Evidence based decision making for vaccines: the need for an ethical foundation. Vaccine. 2012;30:1009-1013.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Kayman supplementary material

Kayman supplementary material 1

Download Kayman supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 131.5 KB