IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0025327.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Characterizing Hospital Workers' Willingness to Respond to a Radiological Event

Author

Listed:
  • Ran D Balicer
  • Christina L Catlett
  • Daniel J Barnett
  • Carol B Thompson
  • Edbert B Hsu
  • Melinda J Morton
  • Natalie L Semon
  • Christopher M Watson
  • Howard S Gwon
  • Jonathan M Links

Abstract

Introduction: Terrorist use of a radiological dispersal device (RDD, or “dirty bomb”), which combines a conventional explosive device with radiological materials, is among the National Planning Scenarios of the United States government. Understanding employee willingness to respond is critical for planning experts. Previous research has demonstrated that perception of threat and efficacy is key in the assessing willingness to respond to a RDD event. Methods: An anonymous online survey was used to evaluate the willingness of hospital employees to respond to a RDD event. Agreement with a series of belief statements was assessed, following a methodology validated in previous work. The survey was available online to all 18,612 employees of the Johns Hopkins Hospital from January to March 2009. Results: Surveys were completed by 3426 employees (18.4%), whose demographic distribution was similar to overall hospital staff. 39% of hospital workers were not willing to respond to a RDD scenario if asked but not required to do so. Only 11% more were willing if required. Workers who were hesitant to agree to work additional hours when required were 20 times less likely to report during a RDD emergency. Respondents who perceived their peers as likely to report to work in a RDD emergency were 17 times more likely to respond during a RDD event if asked. Only 27.9% of the hospital employees with a perception of low efficacy declared willingness to respond to a severe RDD event. Perception of threat had little impact on willingness to respond among hospital workers. Conclusions: Radiological scenarios such as RDDs are among the most dreaded emergency events yet studied. Several attitudinal indicators can help to identify hospital employees unlikely to respond. These risk-perception modifiers must then be addressed through training to enable effective hospital response to a RDD event.

Suggested Citation

  • Ran D Balicer & Christina L Catlett & Daniel J Barnett & Carol B Thompson & Edbert B Hsu & Melinda J Morton & Natalie L Semon & Christopher M Watson & Howard S Gwon & Jonathan M Links, 2011. "Characterizing Hospital Workers' Willingness to Respond to a Radiological Event," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-7, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0025327
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0025327
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025327
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0025327&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0025327?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic & Melissa L. Finucane & Ellen Peters & Donald G. MacGregor, 2004. "Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 311-322, April.
    2. H. Rosoff & D. Von Winterfeldt, 2007. "A Risk and Economic Analysis of Dirty Bomb Attacks on the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 533-546, June.
    3. Daniel J Barnett & Ran D Balicer & Carol B Thompson & J Douglas Storey & Saad B Omer & Natalie L Semon & Steve Bayer & Lorraine V Cheek & Kerry W Gateley & Kathryn M Lanza & Jane A Norbin & Catherine , 2009. "Assessment of Local Public Health Workers' Willingness to Respond to Pandemic Influenza through Application of the Extended Parallel Process Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(7), pages 1-8, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dionne, Georges & Desjardins, Denise & Lebeau, Martin & Messier, Stéphane & Dascal, André, 2014. "Health care workers’ risk perceptions of personal and work activities and willingness to report for work during an influenza pandemic," Working Papers 14-2, HEC Montreal, Canada Research Chair in Risk Management.
    2. Shwu-Ru Liou & Hsiu-Chen Liu & Chun-Chih Lin & Hsiu-Min Tsai & Ching-Yu Cheng, 2020. "An Exploration of Motivation for Disaster Engagement and Its Related Factors among Undergraduate Nursing Students in Taiwan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(10), pages 1-14, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Georges Dionne & Denise Desjardins & Martin Lebeau & Stéphane Messier & André Dascal, 2014. "Health Care Workers' Risk Perceptions of Personal and Work Activities and Willingness to Report for Work During an Influenza Pandemic," Cahiers de recherche 1416, CIRPEE.
    2. Raman Kachurka & Michał W. Krawczyk & Joanna Rachubik, 2021. "Persuasive messages will not raise COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. Evidence from a nation-wide online experiment," Working Papers 2021-07, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    3. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    4. Huaiyuan Zhai & Mengjie Li & Shengyue Hao & Mingli Chen & Lingchen Kong, 2021. "How Does Metro Maintenance Staff’s Risk Perception Influence Safety Citizenship Behavior—The Mediating Role of Safety Attitude," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-20, May.
    5. Scorgie, Fiona & Khoza, Nomhle & Delany-Moretlwe, Sinead & Velloza, Jennifer & Mangxilana, Nomvuyo & Atujuna, Millicent & Chitukuta, Miria & Matambanadzo, Kudzai V. & Hosek, Sybil & Makhale, Lerato & , 2021. "Narrative sexual histories and perceptions of HIV risk among young women taking PrEP in southern Africa: Findings from a novel participatory method," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    6. Kang, Min Jung & Park, Heejun, 2011. "Impact of experience on government policy toward acceptance of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3465-3475, June.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    8. Joanna Sokolowska & Patrycja Sleboda, 2015. "The Inverse Relation Between Risks and Benefits: The Role of Affect and Expertise," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1252-1267, July.
    9. Robinson, Angela & Covey, Judith & Spencer, Anne & Loomes, Graham, 2010. "Are some deaths worse than others? The effect of 'labelling' on people's perceptions," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 444-455, June.
    10. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.
    11. Thomas Deroche & Yannick Stephan & Tim Woodman & Christine Le Scanff, 2012. "Psychological Mediators of the Sport Injury—Perceived Risk Relationship," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 113-121, January.
    12. Felix J. Formanski & Marcel M. Pein & David D. Loschelder & John-Oliver Engler & Onno Husen & Johann M. Majer, 2022. "Tipping points ahead? How laypeople respond to linear versus nonlinear climate change predictions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 1-20, November.
    13. Heather Rosoff & Robert Siko & Richard John & William J. Burns, 2013. "Should I stay or should I go? An experimental study of health and economic government policies following a severe biological agent release," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 121-137, March.
    14. Pam A. Mueller & Lawrence M. Solan & John M. Darley, 2012. "When Does Knowledge Become Intent? Perceiving the Minds of Wrongdoers," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 859-892, December.
    15. Zheng Tang & Yijia Li & Xiaofeng Hu & Huanggang Wu, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Urban Dirty Bomb Attacking Based on Bayesian Network," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-12, January.
    16. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    17. Mutlu, Asli & Roy, Debraj & Filatova, Tatiana, 2023. "Capitalized value of evolving flood risks discount and nature-based solution premiums on property prices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    18. Mahmud, Hasan & Islam, A.K.M. Najmul & Ahmed, Syed Ishtiaque & Smolander, Kari, 2022. "What influences algorithmic decision-making? A systematic literature review on algorithm aversion," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    19. Laura Colautti & Alice Cancer & Sara Magenes & Alessandro Antonietti & Paola Iannello, 2022. "Risk-Perception Change Associated with COVID-19 Vaccine’s Side Effects: The Role of Individual Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-14, January.
    20. H. R. N. van Erp & R. O. Linger & P. H. A. J. M. van Gelder, 2014. "Fact Sheet Research on Bayesian Decision Theory," Papers 1409.8269, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2015.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0025327. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.