IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/johsem/v6y2009i1p24n55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do State Written Pandemic Plans Include Federal Recommendations? A National Study

Author

Listed:
  • Klaiman Tamar A

    (Georgetown University)

  • Ibrahim Jennifer

    (Temple University)

  • Hausman Alice

    (Temple University)

Abstract

The U.S. government has worked to empower states to respond to a pandemic, but there is minimal evaluation to determine the success of such efforts. The purpose of this study was to examine states' preparedness for a pandemic as documented by states' written pandemic plans. The study was a cross-sectional comparative analysis of 50 states' pandemic influenza plans as of March 2008. The CDC's State and Local Pandemic Influenza Planning Checklist was turned into a matrix with each of 85 recommendations making up 10 overarching domains coded as "no mention" = 1, "brief mention but no description or action item" = 2, or "description or action of the item" = 3. Domain scores were constructed by summing each state's factor scores and dividing the sums by the total possible score for that domain. Federal recommendations surrounding leadership, networking and surveillance have been well-integrated, but greater efforts are needed to develop partnerships with health care agencies and focus on antiviral preparedness and infection controls. The use of a clearly defined measurement tool can help states determine their level of preparedness and look to more prepared states for guidance as well as lobby their legislatures for additional resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Klaiman Tamar A & Ibrahim Jennifer & Hausman Alice, 2009. "Do State Written Pandemic Plans Include Federal Recommendations? A National Study," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-24, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:6:y:2009:i:1:p:24:n:55
    DOI: 10.2202/1547-7355.1599
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2202/1547-7355.1599
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2202/1547-7355.1599?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:johsem:v:6:y:2009:i:1:p:24:n:55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.