Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to respond to a radiological event

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere25327
JournalPloS one
Volume6
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2 2011

Fingerprint

health care workers
human resources
Personnel
Emergencies
national planning
state government
work schedules
risk perception
peers
Nuclear Weapons
Risk perception
State Government
Planning
Equipment and Supplies
demographic statistics
planning
Demography
methodology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • General

Cite this

Balicer, R. D., Catlett, C. L., Barnett, D. J., Thompson, C. B., Hsu, E. B., Morton, M. J., ... Links, J. M. (2011). Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to respond to a radiological event. PloS one, 6(10), [e25327]. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025327

Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to respond to a radiological event. / Balicer, Ran D.; Catlett, Christina L.; Barnett, Daniel J.; Thompson, Carol B.; Hsu, Edbert B.; Morton, Melinda J.; Semon, Natalie L.; Watson, Christopher M.; Gwon, Howard S.; Links, Jonathan M.

In: PloS one, Vol. 6, No. 10, e25327, 02.11.2011.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Balicer, RD, Catlett, CL, Barnett, DJ, Thompson, CB, Hsu, EB, Morton, MJ, Semon, NL, Watson, CM, Gwon, HS & Links, JM 2011, 'Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to respond to a radiological event', PloS one, vol. 6, no. 10, e25327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025327
Balicer RD, Catlett CL, Barnett DJ, Thompson CB, Hsu EB, Morton MJ et al. Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to respond to a radiological event. PloS one. 2011 Nov 2;6(10). e25327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025327
Balicer, Ran D. ; Catlett, Christina L. ; Barnett, Daniel J. ; Thompson, Carol B. ; Hsu, Edbert B. ; Morton, Melinda J. ; Semon, Natalie L. ; Watson, Christopher M. ; Gwon, Howard S. ; Links, Jonathan M. / Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to respond to a radiological event. In: PloS one. 2011 ; Vol. 6, No. 10.
@article{bfaf123ae26542bba61468f71a57c886,
title = "Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to respond to a radiological event",
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.",
author = "Balicer, {Ran D.} and Catlett, {Christina L.} and Barnett, {Daniel J.} and Thompson, {Carol B.} and Hsu, {Edbert B.} and Morton, {Melinda J.} and Semon, {Natalie L.} and Watson, {Christopher M.} and Gwon, {Howard S.} and Links, {Jonathan M.}",
year = "2011",
month = "11",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0025327",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
journal = "PLoS One",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Characterizing hospital workers' willingness to respond to a radiological event

AU - Balicer, Ran D.

AU - Catlett, Christina L.

AU - Barnett, Daniel J.

AU - Thompson, Carol B.

AU - Hsu, Edbert B.

AU - Morton, Melinda J.

AU - Semon, Natalie L.

AU - Watson, Christopher M.

AU - Gwon, Howard S.

AU - Links, Jonathan M.

PY - 2011/11/2

Y1 - 2011/11/2

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80055051925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80055051925&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0025327

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0025327

M3 - Article

C2 - 22046238

AN - SCOPUS:80055051925

VL - 6

JO - PLoS One

JF - PLoS One

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 10

M1 - e25327

ER -