From Science to Policy and Practice: A Critical Assessment of Knowledge Management before, during, and after Environmental Public Health Disasters

Abstract

Canada regularly faces environmental public health (EPH) disasters. Given the importance of evidence-based, risk-informed decision-making, we aimed to critically assess the integration of EPH expertise and research into each phase of disaster management. In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 leaders in disaster management from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, and were complemented by other qualitative methods. Three topics were examined: governance, knowledge creation/translation, and related barriers/needs. Data were analyzed through a four-step content analysis. Six critical success factors emerged from the analysis: blending the best of traditional and modern approaches; fostering community engagement; cultivating relationships; investing in preparedness and recovery; putting knowledge into practice; and ensuring sufficient human and financial resources. Several promising knowledge-to-action strategies were also identified, including mentorship programs, communities of practice, advisory groups, systematized learning, and comprehensive repositories of tools and resources. There is no single roadmap to incorporate EPH expertise and research into disaster management. Our findings suggest that preparation for and management of EPH disaster risks requires effective long-term collaboration between science, policy, and EPH practitioners at all levels in order to facilitate coordinated and timely deployment of multi-sectoral/jurisdictional resources when and where they are most needed.

The Role of Social Determinants in Mental Health and Resilience After Disasters: Implications for Public Health Policy and Practice

“…In the end, as Généreux et al noted, good governance is perhaps the single most important factor influencing the effectiveness of emergency preparedness, response, and recovery ( 149 ). With the existing research achievements, it is necessary for government and related organizations to reform policies, innovate practices, cultivate relationships, and share responsibility for ensuring the safety, health, and well-being of affected people.…”

Maintaining Preparedness to Severe Though Infrequent Threats—Can It Be Done?

“…More surprising is the similar trend of high preparedness that was displayed concerning the knowledge of staff, as most healthcare workers do not often participate in MCIs involving hazardous materials. Building and sustaining a high level of knowledge concerning MCIs that result from toxicological/chemical materials has been found in varied healthcare systems to be complex [5,8]. One possible explanation for this phenomenon is the accessibility of data that characterizes the Israeli acute-care hospitals.…”

“…Since the 11 September 2001 attack in the USA, the interest of governing authorities, as well as of the media and the public, expanded to include chemical and toxicological threats [6]. Many states invest significant resources in building their capacity to manage such events and mitigate their consequences, but nonetheless, it has been stated that such efforts have been too limited and, as of yet, many deficiencies in the level of emergency preparedness are still predominant [7][8][9][10].…”

The Integration of Mental Health and Psychosocial Support and Disaster Risk Reduction: A Mapping and Review

“…Experience from these activities has suggested a clear need for guidance on developing MHPSS programming from a DRR perspective. Moreover, research has indicated that academic actors may be more familiar with concepts of the Sendai Framework than practitioners [3] and that significant knowledge gaps exist in approaches to managing MHPSS programming across emergency phases [4]. Therefore, the WHO initiated a three-year project to develop and test practical guidance and curriculum for psychosocial support preparedness in selected countries.…”