↓ Skip to main content

Health care workers’ ability and willingness to report to duty during catastrophic disasters

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Urban Health, July 2005
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
4 policy sources
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
377 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
339 Mendeley
Title
Health care workers’ ability and willingness to report to duty during catastrophic disasters
Published in
Journal of Urban Health, July 2005
DOI 10.1093/jurban/jti086
Pubmed ID
Authors

K. Qureshi, R. R. M. Gershon, M. F. Sherman, T. Straub, E. Gebbie, M. McCollum, M. J. Erwin, S. S. Morse

Abstract

Catastrophic disasters create surge capacity needs for health care systems. This is especially true in the urban setting because the high population density and reliance on complex urban infrastructures (e.g., mass transit systems and high rise buildings) could adversely affect the ability to meet surge capacity needs. To better understand responsiveness in this setting, we conducted a survey of health care workers (HCWs) (N =6,428) from 47 health care facilities in New York City and the surrounding metropolitan region to determine their ability and willingness to report to work during various catastrophic events. A range of facility types and sizes were represented in the sample. Results indicate that HCWs were most able to report to work for a mass casualty incident (MCI) (83%), environmental disaster (81%), and chemical event (71%) and least able to report during a smallpox epidemic (69%), radiological event (64%), sudden acute respiratory distress syndrome (SARS) outbreak (64%), or severe snow storm (49%). In terms of willingness, HCWs were most willing to report during a snow storm (80%), MCI (86%), and environmental disaster (84%) and least willing during a SARS outbreak (48%), radiological event (57%), smallpox epidemic (61%), and chemical event (68%). Barriers to ability included transportation problems, child care, eldercare, and pet care obligations. Barriers to willingness included fear and concern for family and self and personal health problems. The findings were consistent for all types of facilities. Importantly, many of the barriers identified are amenable to interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 339 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 1%
Kenya 2 <1%
Thailand 1 <1%
Unknown 332 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 51 15%
Researcher 41 12%
Other 36 11%
Student > Bachelor 28 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 8%
Other 59 17%
Unknown 98 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 49 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 13%
Psychology 22 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 20 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 6%
Other 68 20%
Unknown 116 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 09 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,371,760
of 22,766,595 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Urban Health
#192
of 1,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,891
of 56,834 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Urban Health
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,766,595 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,284 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 56,834 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.