Assessing radiation emergency preparedness planning by using community assessment for public health emergency response (CASPER) methodology.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 1.2 million persons in Oakland County, Michigan (USA) reside less than 50 miles from the Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, but information is limited regarding how residents might react during a radiation emergency. Community Assessment for Public Health Emergency Response (CASPER) survey methodology has been used in disaster and non disaster settings to collect reliable and accurate population-based public health information, but it has not been used to assess household-level emergency preparedness for a radiation emergency. To improve emergency preparedness plans in Oakland County, including how residents might respond during a radiation emergency, Oakland County Health Division (OCHD), with assistance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH), conducted a CASPER survey. METHODS: During September 2012, a 2-stage cluster sampling design was used to select 210 representative households in Oakland County. By using in-person surveys, the proportion of households with essential needs and supplies, how residents might respond to public health authorities' instructions, and their main source for obtaining information during a radiation emergency were assessed. Data were weighted to account for the complex sampling design. RESULTS: Of the goal of 210 households, 192 (91.4%) surveys were completed: 64.7% and 85.4% of respondents indicated having 3-day supplies of water and of non perishable food, respectively; 62.8% had a 7-day supply of prescription medication for each person who needed it. Additionally, 64.2% had a working carbon monoxide detector; 67.1% had a first-aid kit; and 52% had an alternative heat source. In response to instructions from public health officials during a radiation emergency, 93.3% of all respondents would report to a radiation screening center; 96% would evacuate; and 91.8% would shelter-in-place. During a radiation emergency, 55.8% of respondents indicated their main information source would be television, 18.4% radio, and 13.6% the Internet. The most trusted source for information would be the local public health department (36.5%), local news (23%), a physician (11.2%), and family members (11.1%). Including completed and incomplete interviews, refusals, and non respondents, 517 total households were contacted. CONCLUSIONS: CASPER data regarding how residents might react during a radiation emergency provided objective and quantifiable information that will be used to develop Oakland County's radiation emergency preparedness plans. Survey information demonstrates the feasibility and usefulness of CASPER methodology for radiation emergency preparedness planning.

Vaccine Education, Reasons for Refusal, and Vaccination Behavior.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about associations between the reasons parents refuse or delay vaccines for their children, their responsiveness to vaccine counseling, and their children's vaccination status at various ages. Since 2015, Michigan has required parents to attend education sessions at local health departments to receive nonmedical exemptions. This requirement provides an opportunity to study otherwise opaque aspects of vaccine refusal. METHODS: In 2017 and 2018, researchers analyzed a combined data set that included electronic medical records (n=4,098) generated by one Michigan health department during 2015 immunization education sessions, and immunization records from an August 2016 report of the Michigan Care Improvement Registry immunization registry. Analyses employed difference of proportions and ANOVAs to explore group differences in vaccination behaviors after education sessions and on-time vaccination status at various ages. RESULTS: Children whose parents stated a commitment to an alternative schedule at the education session subsequently received a vaccine their parents had refused at a much higher rate (39.2%) than did children whose parents refused for reasons of religion (4.4%), concerns about the risks of vaccines (8.1%), or beliefs that vaccines provide little benefit (10.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Different reasons for refusal are associated with different patterns of vaccination behavior. Furthermore, results suggest that education sessions may overcome vaccine refusal in some cases, and that distinct refusal reasons mark real differences in parental motivations regarding vaccination choices. These differences in parental motivations may indicate the existence of different sites for potential pro-vaccination interventions.