Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

4 results

  • 6 - Advocacy and the workforce

  • from Part 1 - Historical and theoretical perspectives
  • Edited by Pranee Liamputtong
  • Book:
    Public Health
    Published online:
    25 July 2022
    Print publication:
    10 August 2022, pp 104-126

  • Summary

    To tackle public health complexity, a capable workforce of sufficient scope and size is required. The public health workforce is multi-disciplinary and applies public health principles and methods across a range of areas including program management, policy development, research, and surveillance (Dhavan & Srinath Reddy, 2017). Public health practitioners may work in the public or private sector; within government, non-profit organisations or international agencies. Working in public health requires multisectoral collaboration, a willingness to tackle challenging issues, and a desire to improve the health of populations (Dhavan & Srinath Reddy, 2017). Consequently, public health practitioners must cultivate their knowledge and competencies in politics and advocacy (Kreuter, 2005; Moore et al. 2013). Collective effort is needed to call governments and institutions to act with urgency and prioritise public health action to address growing social and health disparities.

  • US State-Level Legislative Responses to the Ebola Outbreak, 2014-2015

  • Lainie Rutkow, Alexandra Jabs
  • Journal:
    Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness / Volume 10 / Issue 4 / August 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    20 June 2016, pp. 649-653
  • Objective

    We sought to systematically identify and analyze state-level legislative responses to Ebola from April 2014 through June 2015.

    Methods

    Using standardized search terms, we searched the LexisNexis State Capital database to identify bills or resolutions that explicitly mentioned Ebola or viral hemorrhagic fever in all 50 US states and Washington, DC, from April 2014 through June 2015. Information was abstracted from relevant bills or resolutions by using an electronic data collection form. Abstracted information was analyzed to identify themes and patterns.

    Results

    Our search processes returned 273 bills and resolutions; 17 met our inclusion criterion. These 17 bills and resolutions were introduced in 11 states. The primary goals of these materials concerned the following: protecting or acknowledging public health and health care workers (n=4), revising the definition of “communicable disease” (n=3), financial considerations (n=5), establishing a task force (n=2), and updating or creating facilities (n=3). Six bills were enacted and 4 resolutions were adopted.

    Conclusion

    Approximately 20% of the states introduced bills or resolutions concerning the Ebola outbreak. These bills and resolutions highlight important practice considerations, including protections for those who assist in treating Ebola and revision of laws in the face of emerging infectious disease threats. Policy-makers and emergency planners would benefit from incorporating lessons learned from states’ Ebola responses into their preparedness activities. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:649–653)

  • New York State Public Health System Response to Hurricane Sandy: An Analysis of Survey Feedback

  • Asante Shipp Hilts, Stephanie Mack, Yunshu Li, Millicent Eidson, Trang Nguyen, Guthrie S. Birkhead
  • Journal:
    Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness / Volume 10 / Issue 3 / June 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    05 May 2016, pp. 454-462
  • Objective

    The objective was to provide a broad spectrum of New York State and local public health staff the opportunity to contribute anonymous feedback on their own and their agencies’ preparedness and response to Hurricane Sandy, perceived challenges, and recommendations for preparedness improvement.

    Methods

    In 2015, 2 years after Hurricane Sandy, public health staff who worked on Hurricane Sandy response were identified and were provided a link to the anonymous survey. Quantitative analyses were used for survey ratings and qualitative content analyses were used for open-ended questions.

    Results

    Surveys were completed by 129 local health department (LHD) staff in 3 counties heavily impacted by Sandy (Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester) and 69 staff in the New York State Department of Health who supported the LHDs. Staff agreed that their Hurricane Sandy responsibilities were clearly defined and that they had access to adequate information to perform their jobs. Challenges were reported in the operational, communication, service interruptions, and staff categories, with LHD staff also reporting challenges with shelters.

    Conclusions

    New York local and state public health staff indicated that they were prepared for Hurricane Sandy. However, their feedback identified specific challenges and recommendations that can be addressed to implement improved preparedness and response strategies. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:454–462)

  • Health Care Workers' Ability and Willingness to Report to Work During Public Health Emergencies

  • Andy Stergachis, Lisa Garberson, Onora Lien, Luann D'Ambrosio, Laura Sangaré, Cynthia Dold
  • Journal:
    Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness / Volume 5 / Issue 4 / December 2011
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    08 April 2013, pp. 300-308

  • Objectives: We conducted a county-wide survey to assess the ability and willingness of health care workers to report to work during a pandemic influenza and a severe earthquake and to identify barriers and strategies that would help them report to work.

    Methods: A stratified random sample of 9211 health care workers was selected from the Washington state licensure database and from health care agencies. We assessed correlates between self-reported ability and willingness to report to work and demographic and employer-related variables under two scenarios, influenza pandemic and a severe earthquake.

    Results: For the influenza pandemic scenario, 95% of respondents reported that they would be able and 89% reported that they would be willing to report to their usual place of work. Seventy-four percent of respondents reported that they would be able and 88% would be willing to report to their usual place of work following a severe earthquake. The most frequently cited strategies that would help respondents report to work during an influenza pandemic were the availability of anti-viral influenza treatment and the ability to work from home. For persons with children at home, the strategy to increase ability to report to work during an earthquake was the availability of child care.

    Conclusions: The majority of the King County health care workforce is willing and able to respond to an influenza pandemic or a severe earthquake.

    (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:300–308)