We provide an overview of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded public health preparedness and response (PHPR) research and training initiative to improve public health practice. Our objectives were to accelerate the translation, dissemination, and implementation (TDI) of promising PHPR evidence-based tools and trainings developed by the Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRC) or the Preparedness and Emergency Response Learning Centers (PERLC) between 2008 and 2015. Nine competitive awards were made to seven academic centers to achieve predetermined TDI objectives. The outputs attained by the initiative included: user-friendly online repositories of PERRC and PERLC tools and trainings; training courses that addressed topics; a community resilience manual to synthesize, translate, and implement evidence-based programs; and Web applications that supported legal preparedness, exercise evaluation, and immunization education. The evaluation identified several best practices and potential barriers to implementation. As illustrated by the work in this supplement, the broader awareness and implementation of PERRC preparedness products and PERLC trainings and the continued evaluation of their impact could enhance the PHPR capacity and capability of the nation, which could lead to improved health security. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 27, 2018: e1-e8. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2018.304709).

CONTEXT: Interventions and media campaigns promoting household disaster preparedness have produced mixed results in affecting behaviors. In large part, this is due to the limited application of instructional design strategies and behavior theory, such as the Transtheoretical Model (TTM). This study describes the development and evaluation of Ready CDC, an intervention designed to increase household disaster preparedness among the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) workforce. OBJECTIVES: (1) Describe the instructional design strategies employed in the development of Ready CDC and (2) evaluate the intervention's impact on behavior change and factors influencing stage progression for household disaster preparedness behavior. DESIGN: Ready CDC was adapted from the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Ready campaign. Offered to CDC staff September 2013-November 2015, it consisted of a preassessment of preparedness attitudes and behaviors, an in-person training, behavioral reinforcement communications, and a 3-month follow-up postassessment. RESULTS: Ready CDC employed well-accepted design strategies, including presenting stimulus material and enhancing transfer of desired behavior. Excluding those in the TTM "maintenance" stage at baseline, this study determined 44% of 208 participants progressed at least 1 stage for developing a written disaster plan. Moreover, assessment of progression by stage found among participants in the "precontemplation" (n = 16), "contemplation" (n = 15), and "preparation" (n = 125) stages at baseline for assembling an emergency kit, 25%, 27%, and 43% moved beyond the "preparation" stage, respectively. Factors influencing stage movement included knowledge, attitudes, and community resiliency but varied depending on baseline stage of change. CONCLUSIONS: Employing instructional strategies and behavioral theories in preparedness interventions optimizes the potential for individuals to adopt preparedness behaviors. Study findings suggest that stage movement toward household preparedness was not spurious but rather associated with the intervention. Therefore, Ready CDC was successful in moving staff along the continuous process of adopting household disaster preparedness behaviors, thus providing a model for future interventions. The TTM suggests factors such as knowledge, beliefs, and self-efficacy will differ by stage and may differentially predict progression towards behavior adoption. Thus, tailoring interventions based on an individual's stage of change optimizes the potential for individuals to adopt desired behaviors.

Mobile applications, or apps, have gained widespread use with the advent of modern smartphone technologies. Previous research has been conducted in the use of mobile devices for learning. However, there is decidedly less research into the use of mobile apps for health learning (eg, patient self-monitoring, medical student learning). This deficiency in research on using apps in a learning context is especially severe in the disaster health field. The objectives of this article were to provide an overview of the current state of disaster health apps being used for learning, to situate the use of apps in a health learning context, and to adapt a learning framework for the use of mobile apps in the disaster health field. A systematic literature review was conducted by using the PRISMA checklist, and peer-reviewed articles found through the PubMed and CINAHL databases were examined. This resulted in 107 nonduplicative articles, which underwent a 3-phase review, culminating in a final selection of 17 articles. While several learning models were identified, none were sufficient as an app learning framework for the field. Therefore, we propose a learning framework to inform the use of mobile apps in disaster health learning.

In response to concern about strengthening the nation's ability to protect its population and way of life (i.e., security) and ability to adapt and recover from emergencies (i.e., resilience), the President of the United States issued Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness (PPD-8) (1). Signed on March 30, 2011, PPD-8 is a directive for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to coordinate a comprehensive campaign across government, private and nonprofit sectors, and individuals to build and sustain national preparedness. Despite efforts by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other organizations to educate U.S. residents on becoming prepared, growth in specific preparedness behaviors, including actions taken in advance of a disaster to be better prepared to respond to and recover, has been limited (2). In 2012, only 52% of U.S. residents surveyed by FEMA reported having supplies for a disaster (2), a decline from 57% who reported having such supplies in 2009 (3). It is believed that knowledge influences behavior, and that attitudes and beliefs, which are correlated with knowledge, might also influence behavior (4). To determine the association between knowledge and beliefs and household preparedness, CDC analyzed baseline data from Ready CDC, a personal disaster preparedness intervention piloted among Atlanta- and Morgantown-based CDC staff members during 2013–2015. Compared with persons with basic preparedness knowledge, persons with advanced knowledge were more likely to have assembled an emergency kit (44% versus 17%), developed a written household disaster plan (9% versus 4%), and received county emergency alert notifications (63% versus 41%). Similarly, differences in household preparedness behaviors were correlated with beliefs about preparedness. Persons identified as having strong beliefs in the effectiveness of disaster preparedness engaged in preparedness behaviors at levels 7%–30% higher than those with weaker preparedness beliefs. Understanding the influences of knowledge and beliefs on household disaster preparedness might provide an opportunity to inform messages promoting household preparedness.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination promotion strategies are recommended in Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) settings for eligible children at risk for under-immunization due to their low-income status. PURPOSE: To determine coverage levels of WIC and non-WIC participants and assess effectiveness of immunization intervention strategies. METHODS: The 2007-2011 National Immunization Surveys were used to analyze vaccination histories and WIC participation among children aged 24-35 months. Grantee data on immunization activities in WIC settings were collected from the 2010 WIC Linkage Annual Report Survey. Coverage by WIC eligibility and participation status and grantee-specific coverage by intervention strategy were determined at 24 months for select antigens. Data were collected 2007-2011 and analyzed in 2013. RESULTS: Of 13,183 age-eligible children, 5,699 (61%, weighted) had participated in WIC, of which 3,404 (62%, weighted) were current participants. In 2011, differences in four or more doses of the diphtheria, tetanus toxoid, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine by WIC participation status were observed: 86% (ineligible); 84% (current); 77% (previous); and 69% (never-eligible). Children in WIC exposed to an immunization intervention strategy had higher coverage levels than WIC-eligible children who never participated, with differences as great as 15% (DTaP). CONCLUSIONS: Children who never participated in WIC, but were eligible, had the lowest vaccination coverage. Current WIC participants had vaccination coverage comparable to more affluent children, and higher coverage than previous WIC participants.