Jillson Irene Anne, Clarke Michael, Allen Claire, Waller Stephen, Koehlmoos Tracey, Mumford William, Jansen Jeroen, McKay Keith, Trant Alexandra
Georgetown University Medical Center, Department of Family Medicine, Building D, Room 234, 4000 Reservoir Road NW, Washington DC, 20057, USA.
Northern Ireland Methodology Hub, Centre for Public Health, Royal Hospitals, Queen's University Belfast, Grovesnor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, UK.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 May 2;19(1):274. doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4102-5.
In order to elicit the knowledge, experience, and attitudes of individuals involved in disaster response with regard to evidence-based best practices, Evidence Aid and its institutional partners, Georgetown University and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, carried out a Policy Delphi study in 2015-2016.
Purposive and snowball methods were used to select study participants. The Delphi study comprised two rounds of iterative questions, with the questionnaires completed online. In addition, participants at the Evidence Aid conference in November 2016 discussed the findings in focus groups. Excel was used to analyze the quantitative data and Glaser and Strauss (1967) to analyze the qualitative data.
Thirty-six participants responded to the first round of the study, 165 responded to the second round, and 30 participated in the focus group discussions. The salient findings include 1) ensuring that all key stakeholders are engaged in planning for and responding to disasters in a collaborative, coordinated manner-including local community members; 2) using, insofar as possible, evidence-based responses; 3) increasing and strengthening research to ensure that such data are available; and 4) addressing ethical, legal and social issues throughout the planning, immediate response, and post-disaster periods.
Recent humanitarian disasters, due to natural and man-made hazards or a combination of the two, reinforce the need for more effective, efficient, humane responses at the local, national and international levels. This study has yielded findings that can be used to strengthen planning and response by taking into account, where possible, evidence based on research that has been carried out with the engagement of community members and with support by key stakeholders. The most effective means of facilitating the development and implementation of consistent, coordinated policies and practices might be for the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction to take the lead in engaging key organizations in the required discussions and collaborations.
为了了解参与灾害应对的个人在循证最佳实践方面的知识、经验和态度,证据援助组织及其机构合作伙伴乔治敦大学和美国军医大学于2015年至2016年开展了一项政策德尔菲研究。
采用目的抽样法和滚雪球法选择研究参与者。德尔菲研究包括两轮迭代问题,问卷通过在线方式完成。此外,2016年11月证据援助会议的参与者在焦点小组中讨论了研究结果。使用Excel分析定量数据,采用格拉斯和施特劳斯(1967)的方法分析定性数据。
36名参与者回复了第一轮研究,165名回复了第二轮,30名参与了焦点小组讨论。主要研究结果包括:1)确保所有关键利益相关者以协作、协调的方式参与灾害规划和应对,包括当地社区成员;2)尽可能采用循证应对措施;3)加强和增加研究以确保能获取此类数据;4)在整个规划、应急和灾后阶段解决伦理、法律和社会问题。
近期由自然和人为灾害或两者共同引发的人道主义灾难,凸显了在地方、国家和国际层面采取更有效、高效和人道应对措施的必要性。本研究得出的结果可用于加强规划和应对,方法是尽可能考虑基于在社区成员参与和关键利益相关者支持下开展的研究所获得的证据。促进制定和实施一致、协调的政策与实践的最有效方式,可能是由联合国减少灾害风险办公室牵头,让关键组织参与所需的讨论和合作。