健康教育研究与发展杂志

Abstract Background: All citizens need to have a personal disaster plan, but past studies indicate poor preparedness. Predictors of preparedness need to be clearly defined so interventions can be developed. Methods: Human resource (HR) professionals were sent an online survey in May-July, 2011 that assessed their personal/family disaster plan for natural disasters and pandemics, determinants of preparedness, and attitudes and beliefs regarding disaster preparedness. Linear regressions were used to describe factors associated with higher preparedness scores. Chi squares compared attitudes and beliefs about preparedness by whether or not their employer encouraged them to have a personal plan. Results: 471 HR professionals from 33 states participated. Average scores for personal and pandemic preparedness were 12.6 (0 - 20 range) and 4.5 (0- 9 range), respectively. One-third (35.3%, n = 100) had half or fewer preparedness measures, and half (47%, n = 133) had 4 or fewer of the 9 possible pandemic preparedness measures. Determinants of personal preparedness included high perception of personal preparedness for natural disasters and pandemics, having fewer years of work experience, being encouraged by the employer to have a personal preparedness plan, having received disaster preparedness training during the past two years, and not having children in the household. From linear regression, determinants of pandemic preparedness were high perception of personal preparedness for both natural disasters and pandemics, not having children in the household, being male, and having received disaster preparedness training during the past two years. HR professionals whose employer encouraged him/her to have a personal disaster plan had significantly higher perceived importance for family and business preparedness, and higher perceived preparedness compared to those whose employers have not encouraged them to have a personal plan (p<.001 for all). Conclusion: HR professionals will play a critical role during a disaster, but many lack personal preparedness.

Background: Elder abuse and its effects are a serious public health issue. However, little is known about the relation between psychological abuse, other factors (e.g. social support) and quality of life (QoL) by domain. This study addressed differences in QoL by domain between psychologically abused and non-abused. While considering other factors such as social support.

Methods: The respondents were 4,467 (2,559 women) randomly selected persons aged 60-84 years living in 7 European cities. The mean response across countries was 45.2%. The cross-sectional data were analyzed with bivariate/multivariate methods.

Results: Abused respondents contrasted to non-abused scored lower in QoL (autonomy, 67.42 ± 21.26 vs. 72.39 ± 19.58; intimacy, 55.31 ± 31.15 vs. 67.21 ± 28.55; past/present/future activities, 62.79 ± 19.62 vs. 68.05 ± 18.09; social participation, 65.03 ± 19.84 vs. 68.21 ± 19.77). Regressions showed that abuse was negatively associated with autonomy, intimacy and past/present/future activities, and positively with the social participation. All QoL dimensions were negatively associated with country and depressive/anxiety symptoms, and positively with social support. Further, variables such as age, sex and somatic symptoms were negatively associated with some of the QoL dimensions and others such as family structure, education, health care use and drinking positively. The regression model “explained” 32.8% of the variation in autonomy, 45.6% in intimacy, 44.8% in past/present/future activities and 41.5% in social participation.

Conclusions: Abuse was linked to lower QoL in most domains, but other factors such as depressive symptoms also carried a negative impact. Social support and to some extent family structure had a “protective” effect on QoL. Abuse, health indicators (e.g. depressive symptoms) and social support should be considered in addressing the QoL of older persons. However, QoL was influenced by many factors, which could not be firmly disentangled due to the crosssectional approach, calling for longitudinal research to address causality.