4.6 Article

Tailoring disaster risk reduction for adolescents: Qualitative perspectives from China and Nepal

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2018.12.020

关键词

Adolescent health; Human security; Disaster response; Preparedness; Adolescent participation

资金

  1. Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust, Hong Kong
  2. Western Australian Department of Health New Independent Researcher Infrastructure Support grant, Australia
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council Sydney Sax Fellowship, Australia [GNT1035196]
  4. Curtin Research Fellowship, Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is great potential for adolescents to play an active role in disaster response. Yet a dearth of evidence limits efforts to provide age-appropriate services and roles after emergencies. Sixty-nine adolescents (51% female, ages 13-19) and 72 adults (47% female, ages 22-66) participated in key informant interviews and focus group discussions in disaster-affected areas of China and Nepal. Using inductive content analysis, several themes were identified as key to adolescents' needs prior to and following disaster exposure. Safety and security emerged as a central issue, interconnected with preparedness training, timely and equitable disaster response, psychosocial support, and adolescent participation in risk reduction. Adolescents' contributions to disaster response were varied and substantial; including involvement in rescue efforts, delivering first aid, conducting security patrols, transferring building materials, caring for family members and assisting with health education. Participants forwarded a number of recommendations, including stronger systems of protection and family reunification, investing in psychological support, and the delivery of disaster-specific education and skills based training programs. The recognition of adolescents' potential to contribute to rebuilding after disasters is imperative, as is the development of services that take into account their specific needs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据