ArticlePrehospital and disaster medicine2016
Disaster Preparedness among Active Duty Personnel, Retirees, Veterans, and Dependents.
Article in Prehospital and disaster medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- The Promotion of 'Grab Bags' as a Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy.PLoS currents · 2018Article
- Development and Validation of a Questionnaire to Measure Iranian Nurses' Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Regarding Disaster Preparedness.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWith the increase in natural and manmade disasters, preparedness remains a vital area of concern. Despite attempts by government and non-government agencies to stress the importance of preparedness, national levels of preparedness remain unacceptably low. A goal of commands and installations is to ensure that US Navy beneficiaries are well prepared for disasters. This especially is critical in active service members to meet mission readiness requirements in crisis settings.
objectiveTo evaluate active duty Navy personnel, dependents, veterans, and retirees regarding disaster preparedness status.
methodsThe authors conducted an anonymous 29-question survey for US Navy active duty, dependents, veterans, and retirees of the Greater San Diego Region (California, USA) evaluating actual basic disaster readiness as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) standards of 3-day minimum supply of emergency stores and equipment. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were used to analyze data.
resultsOne thousand one hundred and fifty surveys were returned and analyzed. Nine hundred and eight-three were sufficiently complete for logistic regression analysis with 394 responding "Yes" to having a 72-hour disaster kit (40.1%) while 589 had "No" as a response (59.9%).
conclusionThe surveyed population is no more prepared than the general public, though surveyed beneficiaries overall are at an upper range of preparedness. Lower income and levels of education were associated with lack of preparedness, whereas training in disaster preparedness or having been affected by disasters increased the likelihood of being adequately prepared. Unlike results seen in the general public, those with chronic health care needs in the surveyed population were more, rather than less, likely to be prepared and those with minor children were less likely, rather than more likely, to be prepared. Duty status was assessed and only veterans were emphatically more probable than most to be prepared.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.