Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T10:49:28.129Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fear, Familiarity, and the Perception of Risk: A Quantitative Analysis of Disaster-Specific Concerns of Paramedics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Erin C. Smith ,
Frederick M. Burkle Jr  and
Frank L. Archer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction: Paramedics play an integral role in the response to and management of disasters and mass casualty events. Providing a core component of the front line response to disasters, paramedics potentially expose themselves to a variety of health and safety risks, including physical injury, death, communicable disease, and psychological effects. The health and safety risks to emergency service personnel were highlighted by the deaths of firefighters, paramedics, and police during the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and the infection, illness, and deaths of paramedics and emergency health care staff during the severe acute respiratory syndrome outbreak in 2003.

Objective: Given that a willing and able prehospital workforce is a vital component of any successful response to a disaster situation, the present study explored paramedics' perception of risk and willingness to work, with a specific focus on identifying which type of disasters that paramedics associate with greater levels of fear, familiarity, and risk.

Methods: A total of 175 paramedics completed a survey ranking 40 disaster scenarios for levels of fear and familiarity.

Results: The results indicate that paramedics ranked nuclear and radiological events and outbreaks of new and highly infectious disasters highest for fear and unfamiliarity. This has implications for preparedness, education, and training.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:46-53)

Keywords

risk assessmenthealth personnelemergency medical technicianspsychometricsperceptionoccupational exposureoccupational healthenvironmental exposurenuclear energyradiation effectsdisease outbreaksfearstress, psychologicalattitude of health personnelrisk perceptiondisaster preparednessdisaster responseparamedic
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2011 , pp. 46 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Wilson, R, Crouch, EAC.Risk-Benefit Analysis. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press; 2001.Google Scholar
2.Slovic, P.Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236:280–285.Google Scholar
3.Flynn, J, Slovic, P, Mertz, C.Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 1994;14:1101–1108.Google Scholar
4.Finucane, M, Slovic, P, Mertz, C.Gender, race, perceived risk: the “white male” effect. Health Risk Soc. 2000;2:159–172.Google Scholar
5.Epstein, S.Integration of the cognitive and the psycho-dynamic unconscious. Am Psychol. 1994;49:709–724.Google Scholar
6.Slovic, P.Terrorism as hazard: a new species of trouble. Risk Anal. 2002;22:425–426.Google Scholar
7.Tippett, V, Archer, F, Kelly, H.The Australian Prehospital Pandemic Risk Perception Study and an Examination of New Public Health Roles for Ambulance Services in Pandemic Response. Brisbane: Australian Centre for Prehospital Research, Queensland Ambulance Service; 2007.Google Scholar
8.Slovic, P, Weber, E.Perception of risk posed by extreme events. Paper presented at: Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World Conference; April 2002; Palisades, NY.Google Scholar
9.Fischhoff, B, Lichtenstein, S, Slovic, P.How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits. Policy Sci. 1978;9:127–152.Google Scholar
10.Slovic, P, Fischhoff, B, Lichtenstein, S.Behavioural decision theory on risk and safety. Acta Psychol. 1984;56:183–203.Google Scholar
11.Benthin, A, Slovic, P, Severson, H.A psychometric study of adolescent risk perception. J Adolesc. 1993;16:153–168.Google Scholar
12.Smith, E, Morgans, A, Qureshi, K, Archer, F, Burkle, F JrParamedics' perceptions of risk and willingness to work during disasters. Aust J Emerg Manage. 2008;23 (2):14–20.Google Scholar
13.Reilly, MJ, Markenson, D, DiMaggio, C.Comfort level of emergency medical service providers in responding to weapons of mass destruction events: impact of training and equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22:297–303.Google Scholar
14.Qureshi, K, Gershon, RRM, Sherman, MF.Health care workers' ability and willingness to report to duty during catastrophic disasters. J Urban Health. 2005;82:378–388.Google Scholar
15.DiMaggio, C, Markeson, D, Loo, GT.The willingness of U.S. emergency medical technicians to respond to terrorist incidents. Biosecur Bioterror. 2005;3:331–337.Google Scholar
16.Syrett, JL, Benitez, JG, Livingston, WH.Will emergency health care providers respond to mass casualty incidents? Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007;11:49–54.Google Scholar
17.White, GF.Foreword. In: Slovic P, ed. The Perception of Risk. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications; 2006.Google Scholar
18.Starr, C.Social benefit versus technological risk. Science. 1969;165:1232–1238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Tversky, A, Kahneman, D.Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1127–1131.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Slovic, P.The Perception of Risk. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications; 2006.Google Scholar
21.Bushfires death toll. Victoria Police Web site. http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=19280. Published February 13, 2009. Accessed March 5, 2009.Google Scholar
22.Lichtenstein, S, Slovic, P, Fischhoff, B, Layman, M, Combs, B.Judged frequency of lethal events. J Exp Psychol. 1978;4:551–578.Google Scholar
23.Combs, B, Slovic, P.Newspaper coverage of causes of death. Journalism Q. 1979;56:837–843.Google Scholar
24.Morgan, MG, Slovic, P, Nair, I.Powerline frequency electric and magnetic fields: a pilot study of risk perception. Risk Anal. 1985;5:139–149.Google Scholar
25.Ahern, J, Galea, S, Resnick, H, Vlahov, D.Television images and probable post traumatic stress disorder after September 11: the role of background characteristics, event exposure, and perievent panic. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2004;192:217–226.Google Scholar
26.Erikson, K.Toxic reckoning: business faces a new kind of fear. Harv Bus Rev. 1990(January-February)118–126.Google Scholar
27.Erikson, K.Radiation's lingering dread. Bull At Sci. 1991(March)34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28.Erikson, K.A New Species of Trouble: Explorations in Disaster, Trauma, and Community. New York: WW Norton; 1994.Google Scholar
29.Kasperson, R, Renn, O, Slovic, P.The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 1988;8:177–187.Google Scholar
30.Mitchell, RC, Carson, TC.Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Press; 1989.Google Scholar
31.Breakwell, GM.The Psychology of Risk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
32.Slovic, P, Fischhoff, B, Lichtenstein, S.Rating the risks. Environment. 1979;21:14–20.Google Scholar
33.Lee, TR.Social and psychological consequences of the Chernobyl accident: an overview of the first decade. Paper presented at: International Conference on Health Consequences of the Chernobyl and Other Radiological Accidents; 1995; Geneva.Google Scholar
34.Loewenstein, GF, Weber, EU, Hsee, CK, Welch, E.Risk as feelings. Psychol Bull. 2001;127:267–286.Google Scholar
35.Damasio, AR.Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G.P. Putnam; 1994..Google Scholar
36.Kellerman, AL, Somes, G, Rivara, FP, Lee, RK, Banton, JG.Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home. J Trauma. 1998;45:263–267..Google Scholar