Assessing the national capacity for disaster research response (DR2) within the NIEHS Environmental Health Sciences Core Centers.

INTRODUCTION: Disaster research response (DR2) is necessary to answer scientific questions about the environmental health impacts of disasters and the effectiveness of response and recovery strategies. This research explores the preparedness and capacity of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) P30 Core Centers (CCs) to conduct DR2 and engage with communities in the context of disasters. METHODS: In early 2018, we conducted an online survey of CC Directors (n = 16, 69.5% response rate) to identify their DR2 relevant scientific assets, capabilities, and activities. Summary statistics were calculated. We also conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 16 (69.5%) CC Community Engagement Core directors to identify facilitators and barriers of DR2 community engagement. Interview notes were coded and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Survey: While 56% of responding CCs reported prior participation in DR2 and preparedness to repurpose funding to support DR2, less than one third reported development of a disaster-specific data collection protocol, deployment plan, or concept of operations plan, participation in an exercise to test DR2 capacity, development of academic partnerships to conduct DR2, development of a process for fast-tracking institutional review board approvals for DR2, or maintenance of formal agreements with state, local, or community-based partner(s). A number of CCs reported developing or considering developing capacity in these areas. Barriers to, and tools and resources to enhance, CC engagement in DR2 were identified. Interviews: Four key components for community engaged DR2 were identified: pre-existing community relationships, responsive research that benefits communities, coordination among researchers, and coordination with community response partners. Several roles for, benefits of, and barriers to Community Engagement Rapid Response Teams (CERRT) were described. CONCLUSIONS: CCs have significant scientific assets and community partnerships that can be leveraged for DR2; however, additional planning is necessary to ensure that these scientific assets and community partnerships are leveraged when disasters strike.

Engaging Local Health Departments in Disaster Research: A Washington State Survey.

OBJECTIVE: Disaster research can inform effective, efficient, and evidence-based public health practices and decision making; identify and address knowledge gaps in current disaster preparedness and response efforts; and evaluate disaster response strategies. This study aimed to identify challenges and opportunities experienced by Washington State local health departments (LHDs) regarding engagement in disaster research activities. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated to the emergency preparedness representative for the 35 LHDs in Washington State. Survey questions sought to assess familiarity and experience with disaster research, as well as identify facilitators and barriers to their involvement. The survey was first piloted with 7 local and state public health emergency preparedness practitioners. RESULTS: A total of 82.9% of Washington's 35 LHDs responded to our survey. Only 17.2% of respondents had previous experience with disaster research. Frequently reported barriers to engaging in disaster research included funding availability, competing everyday priorities, staff capacity, and competing priorities during disaster response. CONCLUSIONS: These findings can inform efforts to support disaster research partnerships with Washington State LHDs and facilitate future collaboration. Researchers and public health practitioners should develop relationships and work to incorporate disaster research into LHD planning, training, and exercises to foster practice-based disaster research capacity.