| Title |
Self-efficacy and barriers to disaster evacuation in Hong Kong
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, September 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-017-1036-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth A. Newnham, Satchit Balsari, Rex Pui Kin Lam, Shraddha Kashyap, Phuong Pham, Emily Y. Y. Chan, Kaylie Patrick, Jennifer Leaning |
| Abstract |
To investigate specific challenges to Hong Kong's capacity for effective disaster response, we assessed perceived barriers to evacuation and citizens' self-efficacy. Global positioning system software was used to determine random sampling locations across Hong Kong, weighted by population density. The resulting sample of 1023 participants (46.5% female, mean age 40.74 years) were invited to complete questionnaires on emergency preparedness, barriers to evacuation and self-efficacy. Latent profile analysis and multinomial logistic regression were used to identify self-efficacy profiles and predictors of profile membership. Only 11% of the sample reported feeling prepared to respond to a disaster. If asked to evacuate in an emergency, 41.9% of the sample cited significant issues that would preclude them from doing so. Self-efficacy was negatively associated with barriers to disaster response so that participants reporting higher levels of self-efficacy cited fewer perceived barriers to evacuation. Hong Kong has established effective strategies for emergency response, but concerns regarding evacuation and mobilisation remain. The findings indicate that improving self-efficacy for disaster response has potential to increase evacuation readiness. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 50% |
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 86 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 12% |
| Lecturer | 7 | 8% |
| Researcher | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 33 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 10 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 8% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 13 | 15% |
| Unknown | 38 | 44% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 41. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,006,243
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#92
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,432
of 325,302 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#3
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,302 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.