Integrating Health Research into Disaster Response: The New NIH Disaster Research Response Program

Abstract

The need for high quality and timely disaster research has been a topic of great discussion over the past several years. Recent high profile incidents have exposed gaps in knowledge about the health impacts of disasters or the benefits of specific interventions—such was the case with the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill and recent events associated with lead-contaminated drinking water in Flint, Michigan, and the evolving health crisis related to Zika virus disease. Our inability to perform timely research to inform the community about health and safety risks or address specific concerns further heightens anxiety and distrust. Since nearly all disasters, whether natural or man-made, have an environmental health component, it is critical that specialized research tools and trained researchers be readily available to evaluate complex exposures and health effects, especially for vulnerable sub-populations such as the elderly, children, pregnant women, and those with socioeconomic and environmental disparities. In response, the National Institute of Environmental Health Science has initiated a Disaster Research Response Program to create new tools, protocols, networks of researchers, training exercises, and outreach involving diverse groups of stakeholders to help overcome the challenges of disaster research and to improve our ability to collect vital information to reduce the adverse health impacts and improve future preparedness.

A conceptual model to assess stress‐associated health effects of multiple ecosystem services degraded by disaster events in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere

“…Adverse or damaging responses that may increase AL and exacerbate mental and physical distress include negative media reports, litigation, or systematic failure of leaders and social institutions to cope or inspire confidence and trust [Freudenberg, 1997;Juster et al, 2011a;Palinkas, 2012;Vasterman et al, 2005;Weems et al, 2012;Xu et al, 2016]. Positive responses that may ameliorate stress include effective predisaster planning, warnings, and recovery actions, improved building construction requirements, disaster-focused training and capacity building among public health workers, an emphasis on coastal resilience, and strong community organizations [Adger et al, 2005;Miller et al, 2016;Norris et al, 2008;Qureshi et al, 2004;Shultz et al, 2005].…”

“…To prevent this situation from happening in the future, policy makers should ensure that costs for assessment, treatment, recovery, and monitoring of the health of humans and communities affected by disasters, and the subsequent loss of ecosystem services, are included in calculations of penalties and recovery of damages from responsible parties and in government‐supported recovery efforts. Disaster preparedness and recovery planning should incorporate the DPSERH framework to account for human health and well‐being requirements. This includes monitoring of selected health and well‐being parameters from individual to community levels in order to determine when damage and recovery have occurred and to what extent. In conjunction with other tools, the model could be used to direct investments in improving capabilities of the public health community, biomedical researchers, and environmental scientists and to help guide development and implementation of an integrated, rapid disaster research response capacity [ Lurie et al ., ; Miller et al ., ; Sandifer et al ., ]. Special emphasis should be placed on predisaster and postdisaster collection of clinically and diagnostically relevant biomarkers, mental health indices, and other data on psychological and physiological conditions of individuals and groups and monitoring of these indicators over time to quantify stress‐related human health impacts and their long‐term recovery.…”

Population Health Adaptation Approaches to the Increasing Severity and Frequency of Weather-Related Disasters Resulting From our Changing Climate: A Literature Review and Application to Charleston, South Carolina

“…As a result, in 2013, the Director of the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) provided funding to NIEHS to develop a disaster research response capability – the NIH Disaster Research Response (DR2) program. 100 The scope of this program includes: the establishment of an external network of trained researchers/research organizations; the establishment of trained readily available researchers; the identification and prioritization of key environmental health clinical research questions; the development of pre-written and approved research protocols; and the development of publicly accessible data collection tools. In summary, both the NIEHS and the NCEH have developed robust tools and templates applicable to the setting of weather-related disasters, including both research and practice-based tools(52, 56, 64, 89–96).…”

“…In summary, both the NIEHS and the NCEH have developed robust tools and templates applicable to the setting of weather-related disasters, including both research and practice-based tools(52, 56, 64, 89–96). 52,56,64,100–107 More information can be found within their on-line resources. There is a need for greater outreach within the public health community to increase awareness of the existing disaster epidemiology tools which are available for applications within disaster preparedness planning exercises at the local levels.…”

Engaging Local Health Departments in Disaster Research: A Washington State Survey

“…Moreover, research efforts must be well-integrated into the response plan to not impede response priorities or interfere with the safety, speed, or effectiveness of responders. 2 The lack of established disaster research infrastructure and networks has previously led to missed opportunities to conduct such research that improves understanding of disaster health impacts and public health disaster management strategies. For example, following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, there was a 10-month delay in the initiation of data collection in a longitudinal study of relief workers.…”