Public Disaster Communication and Child and Family Disaster Mental Health: a Review of Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical Evidence

Houston, J. Brian; First, Jennifer M.; Spialek, Matthew L.; Sorenson, Mary E.; Koch, Megan

doi:10.1007/s11920-016-0690-5

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The CDCA could also serve as an outcome evaluation to gauge the effectiveness of disaster communication messages. Despite numerous public disaster communication efforts to increase individuals’ disaster preparedness in the Pre-Event phase or to improve mental health service utilization in the Post-Event phase, empirical evidence evaluating these campaigns and interventions is nonexistent (Houston, First, Spialek, Sorenson, & Koch, 2016). Utilizing the CDCA following campaigns and interventions can address the need for evidence-based best practices for public disaster communication campaign message design and implementation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development and Initial Validation of the Citizen Disaster Communication Assessment

Spialek

Houston

2017

Communication Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current U.S. federal disaster management approaches advocate for citizens to engage in local efforts to cope with the negative consequences of disasters. In line with this approach, this project develops and validates the Citizen Disaster Communication Assessment (CDCA), which is a comprehensive survey instrument measuring individuals' communication across disaster phases. The CDCA development process occurred over three studies. Study 1 consisted of assessment item generation and expert review. Study 2 determined the dimensionality of citizen disaster communication. Study 3 surveyed three communities experiencing different disaster phases in order to confirm the CDCA factor structure. Results (a) demonstrate evidence of an empirically derived citizen disaster communication measure and (b) inform current understanding of how citizens' communication can participate in community disaster management. Future research should use the CDCA in other diverse communities to further validate the measure and to provide additional insight into the structural and sociodemographic factors influencing disaster communication.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development and Initial Validation of the Citizen Disaster Communication Assessment

Spialek

Houston

2017

Communication Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its overarching aim was-and remains-to reduce distress and minimise development of mental health difficulties, including post-traumatic sympotms, in the wake of the incident. The hub involves an assertive screen-and-refer outreach model [40], to systematically screen people of all ages, across the UK and beyond, with a stepped-care approach, tailoring treatment pathways to the needs of different individuals and groups [20,41]. Those in need were initially identified by an email sent to concert ticket buyers, and are still referred, via promotion of the screening programme though traditional and social media, as well as approaches to professionals through occupational health departments (see below, Results | Implementation actions).…”

Section: Overview Of the Psychosocial Response To The Arena Bombingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The psychosocial response to a terrorist attack at Manchester Arena, 2017: a process evaluation

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A 2017 terrorist attack in Manchester, UK, affected large numbers of adults and young people. During the response phase (first seven weeks), a multi-sector collaborative co-ordinated a decentralised response. In the subsequent recovery phase they implemented a centralised assertive outreach programme, ‘The Resilience Hub’, to screen and refer those affected. We present a process evaluation conducted after 1 year. Methods Case study, involving a logic modelling approach, aggregate routine data, and semi-structured interviews topic guides based on the Inter-Agency Collaboration Framework and May’s Normalisation Process Theory. Leaders from health, education and voluntary sectors (n = 21) and frontline Resilience Hub workers (n = 6) were sampled for maximum variation or theoretically, then consented and interviewed. Framework analysis of transcripts was undertaken by two researchers. Results Devolved government, a collaborative culture, and existing clinical networks meant that, in the response phase, a collaboration was quickly established between health and education. All but one leader evaluated the response positively, although they were not involved in pre-disaster statutory planning. However, despite overwhelming positive feedback there were clear difficulties. (1) Some voluntary sector colleagues felt that it took some time for them to be involved. (2) Other VCSE organisations were accused of inappropriate, harmful use of early intervention. (3) The health sector were accused of overlooking those below the threshold for clinical treatment. (4) There was a perception that there were barriers to information sharing across organisations, which was particularly evident in relation to attempts to outreach to first responders and other professionals who may have been affected by the incident. (5) Hub workers encountered barriers to referring people who live outside of Greater Manchester. After 1 year of the recovery phase, 877 children and young people and 2375 adults had completed screening via the Resilience Hub, 79% of whom lived outside Greater Manchester. Conclusions The psychosocial response to terrorist attacks and other contingencies should be planned and practiced before the event, including reviews of communications, protocols, data sharing procedures and workforce capacity. Further research is needed to understand how the health and voluntary sectors can best collaborate in the wake of future incidents.

show abstract

“…The Manchester Resilience Hub (‘the hub’) was established in the immediate aftermath of the incident to manage the psychosocial impact of the event, including trauma responses shortly after the incident, and those that emerged over time. The hub uses a proactive outreach model, 9 taking a stepped-care approach (universal, targeted and specialist), allowing a flexible response to meet the differing needs of groups and individuals, and adapt personal treatment pathways accordingly. 10,11 Assessment of clinical need or clinical triage 12,13 is made with the help of an online screening tool, supplemented by telephone contact from a hub clinician.…”

Section: The Manchester Arena Bombingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychological screening of adults and young people following the Manchester Arena incident

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Terrorist attacks have increased globally since the late 1990s with clear evidence of psychological distress across both adults and children and young people (CYP). After the Manchester Arena terrorist attack, the Resilience Hub was established to identify people in need of psychological and psychosocial support. Aims To examine the severity of symptoms and impact of the programme. Method The hub offers outreach, screening, clinical telephone triage and facilitation to access evidenced treatments. People were screened for trauma, depression, generalised anxiety and functioning who registered at 3, 6 and 9 months post-incident. Baseline scores were compared between screening groups (first screen at 3, 6 or 9 months) in each cohort (adult, CYP), and within groups to compare scores at 9 months. Results There were significant differences in adults' baseline scores across screening groups on trauma, depression, anxiety and functioning. There were significant differences in the baseline scores of CYP across screening groups on trauma, depression, generalised anxiety and separation anxiety. Paired samples t-tests demonstrated significant differences between baseline and follow-up scores on all measures for adults in the 3-month screening group, and only depression and functioning measures for adults in the 6-month screening group. Data about CYP in the 3-month screening group, demonstrated significant differences between baseline and follow-up scores on trauma, generalised anxiety and separation anxiety. Conclusions These findings suggest people who register earlier are less symptomatic and demonstrate greater improvement across a range of psychological measures. Further longitudinal research is necessary to understand changes over time. Declaration of interest None.

show abstract

Public Disaster Communication and Child and Family Disaster Mental Health: a Review of Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical Evidence

Cited by 15 publications

References 47 publications

The Development and Initial Validation of the Citizen Disaster Communication Assessment

The Development and Initial Validation of the Citizen Disaster Communication Assessment

The psychosocial response to a terrorist attack at Manchester Arena, 2017: a process evaluation

Psychological screening of adults and young people following the Manchester Arena incident

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About