The aim of this study was to pilot test the Household Emergency Preparedness Instrument (HEPI) with a diverse sample, allowing for assessment of reliability and validity of the instrument. The HEPI is an international, all-hazards questionnaire created to measure disaster preparedness of households, which results in data that can be used to enhance health promotion/disease prevention for individuals and promote resilience for communities.

A cross-sectional study of faculty, staff, and students (N = 284) was completed to perform factor analysis to establish the HEPI’s construct validity and compare preparedness across groups.

The factor analysis revealed 2 dimensions of general preparedness, explaining 35% of the sample variance (Cronbach’s α = 0.89): preparedness actions and planning (α = 0.86) and disaster supplies and resources (α = 0.80). This factor analysis resulted in the revision of the subscaling of HEPI questions. Consistent with previous studies, faculty/staff, older age, higher income, and those with previous disaster experience were more prepared. The mean score was 15.28 out of 40 points.

The HEPI is easy to administer and explains an acceptable amount of variance. The reliability was strong in this assessment, particularly for a pilot test. Construct, criterion, face, and content validity support the adequacy of the HEPI to capture essentials of household emergency preparedness.

The main objective of this research was to generate a consensus on the conceptual definition of household emergency preparedness from experts representing multiple disciplines and countries, in order to facilitate the development of an all-hazards, comprehensive, valid, and reliable instrument.

Questions were generated via 3 methods: literature search, using existing instruments, and expert panels using the Delphi technique.

Panelists (n = 154) representing 36 countries came to a consensus that household emergency preparedness is defined as the completion of several preparedness actions and assembling a kit that can be transported in an evacuation. The new 51-question instrument demonstrates face, content, and criterion validity and internal consistency reliability (α = 0.96). The instrument assesses whether specific preparedness actions have been taken, and the presence or absence of essential supplies that could enable households to safely endure conditions that disasters would likely present (loss of power, water limitations, and/or lack of access to additional supplies for a few days).

A valid and reliable instrument provides researchers with a replicable approach to assessment of preparedness levels, which is necessary to plan mitigation strategies, enhance health promotion, prevent injuries, and increase resilience for individuals and communities. The instrument can provide evidence to support interventions addressing health needs of community members following a disaster.

This pilot study explored personal disaster preparedness of nursing staff and their ability and willingness to respond following a disaster.

All nurses from a single hospital were invited to participate; 91 completed an online survey asking them to rate their ability and willingness to report to work following the disaster scenarios and to indicate whether they had pursued various preparedness activities. Data were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics using Minitab 17 Statistical Software.

Participants reflected a cross-section of major acute care units and nursing specialties. The majority of participants indicated being able and willing to report to work following the disaster scenarios. Personal disaster preparedness varied, with few activities pursued by the majority. Few scenarios produced a relationship between preparedness activities and ability or willingness to report to work.

Despite the majority of participants indicating they would be able and willing to report to work during a disaster, they acknowledged barriers affecting them. Most disaster scenarios showed no statistically significant relationship with preparedness activities. Nurses should consider barriers that affect their own availability for work following a disaster and identify potential solutions. Future research related to mitigation of possible barriers to surge capacity would be useful.