Evaluation of Interdisciplinary Terrorism Preparedness Programs: A Pilot Focus Group Study

This is the publisher's version, also available electronically from http://www.ingentaconnect.comMany terrorism preparedness trainings occur throughout the United States, yet few qualitatively examine trainees' needs and interests, reactions to training, or suggestions for training improvement. Eleven posttraining focus groups were conducted with 31 training participants at six sites. Participants were stratified by health profession discipline, and discipline-specific moderators conducted each session to better understand and probe for feedback. One additional moderator attended all sessions to increase consistency in methods across sessions. Focus group participants assessed changes in their perceptions, knowledge, and beliefs about terrorism preparedness. Participants reported perceiving terrorism as a potential threat but less likely than natural disasters. All-hazards crossover training for responding to terrorism and natural disasters was requested. The training was viewed positively, including the enrollment process, training content, and reference materials. Participants reported increased confidence in abilities to recognize a terrorist event. Participants stated they would like the training repeated annually with more first responders in attendance. Participants from rural areas had unique training needs based on limited resources and multiple roles of staff. While most participants wanted a longer, multispecialty conference with in-depth, discipline-specific breakout sessions, physicians requested shorter, separate training. Multispecialty training methods were successful and appreciated. This pilot study may serve as a template for qualitative evaluation of terrorism preparedness conferences for health professionals

Vaccine Criticism on the World Wide Web

BACKGROUND: The incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases is directly related to the number of unvaccinated children. Parents who refuse vaccination of their children frequently express concerns about vaccine safety. The Internet can influence perceptions about vaccines because it is the fastest growing source of consumer health information. However, few studies have analyzed vaccine criticism on the Web. OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this paper are to examine vaccine criticism on the Internet and to analyze the websites in order to identify common characteristics and ethical allegations. METHODS: A structured Web search was conducted for the terms “vaccine,” “vaccination,” “vaccinate,” and “anti-vaccination” using a metasearch program that incorporated 8 search engines. This yielded 1138 Web pages representing 750 sites. Two researchers reviewed the sites for inclusion/exclusion criteria, resulting in 78 vaccine-critical sites, which were then abstracted for design, content, and allegations. RESULTS: The most common characteristic of vaccine-critical websites was the inclusion of statements linking vaccinations with specific adverse reactions, especially idiopathic chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis, autism, and diabetes. Other common attributes (≥ 70% of websites) were links to other vaccine-critical websites; charges that vaccines contain contaminants, mercury, or “hot lots” that cause adverse events; claims that vaccines provide only temporary protection and that the diseases prevented are mild; appeals for responsible parenting through education and resisting the establishment; allegations of conspiracies and cover-ups to hide the truth about vaccine safety; and charges that civil liberties are violated through mandatory vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Vaccine-critical websites frequently make serious allegations. With the burgeoning of the Internet as a health information source, an undiscerning or incompletely educated public may accept these claims and refuse vaccination of their children. As this occurs, the incidence of vaccine-preventable diseases can be expected to rise