Citation

Qari SH, Yusuf HR, Groseclose SL, Leinhos MR, Carbone EG. Disaster Med. Public Health Prep. 2019; 13(3): 626-638.

Affiliation

Office of Science and Public Health Practice,Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response,United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,Atlanta,Georgia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2019, Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Publisher Cambridge University Press)

DOI

10.1017/dmp.2018.110

PMID

30419972

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-funded Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) conducted research from 2008 to 2015 aimed to improve the complex public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR) system. This paper summarizes PERRC studies that addressed the development and assessment of criteria for evaluating PHEPR and metrics for measuring their efficiency and effectiveness.

METHODS: We reviewed 171 PERRC publications indexed in PubMed between 2009 and 2016. These publications derived from 34 PERRC research projects. We identified publications that addressed the development or assessment of criteria and metrics pertaining to PHEPR systems and describe the evaluation methods used and tools developed, the system domains evaluated, and the metrics developed or assessed.

RESULTS: We identified 29 publications from 12 of the 34 PERRC projects that addressed PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics. We grouped each study into 1 of 3 system domains, based on the metrics developed or assessed: (1) organizational characteristics (n = 9), (2) emergency response performance (n = 12), and (3) workforce capacity or capability (n = 8). These studies addressed PHEPR system activities including responses to the 2009 H1N1 pandemic and the 2011 tsunami, as well as emergency exercise performance, situational awareness, and workforce willingness to respond. Both PHEPR system process and outcome metrics were developed or assessed by PERRC studies.

CONCLUSIONS: PERRC researchers developed and evaluated a range of PHEPR system evaluation criteria and metrics that should be considered by system partners interested in assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of their activities. Nonetheless, the monitoring and measurement problem in PHEPR is far from solved. Lack of standard measures that are readily obtained or computed at local levels remains a challenge for the public health preparedness field. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2018;page 1 of 13).

Language: en

Keywords

disaster planning; emergency preparedness program assessment; performance improvement; public health emergency preparedness and response