Thematic analysis of seven Australian disaster reports or inquiries

Diana Francis Wong, Caroline Spencer, Leanne Boyd, Dudley McArdle, Frederick Burkle Jnr., Francis Leo Archer

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

Abstract

Study/Objective: The main research problem is based on the lack of globally accepted disaster evaluation frameworks, methodologies, and sharing of information. The aim of this study was to validate a structured disaster impact framework by undertaking a thematic analysis of seven recent Australian disaster reports or inquiries.
Background: Around the world, disasters continue to increase in frequency and magnitude. As the global population increases in number and density, the risk of disasters resulting in mass casualties and affecting the lives of many communities continues to increase. In an effort to reduce the risk of harm an
evidence-based approach to disaster reporting utilising a validated framework is urgently required to: establish a systematic and timely approach to disaster evaluation reporting, using a common template and agreed definitions; share disaster reports; and, be easily accessible and user friendly.
Methods: A disaster impact framework was structured based on the 2003 ‘Health Disaster Management Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the Utstein Style’ (TFQCDM). A thematic analysis of seven selected recent Australian disaster reports dating from 2006 - 2014 was undertaken. The disasters occurred in four different Australian states, covered four different types of events, included four different types of reports and were chaired by six different Chairpersons. Results were checked by two researchers.
Results: The review identified that all elements of the framework used were present in each of the 7 Australian Disaster Reports/Inquiries.
Conclusion: This review and analysis has validated the core framework based on 2003 ‘Health Disaster Management Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the Utstein Style’. Future research needs to be undertaken to seek validation in other settings.
Original languageEnglish
Pages162
Number of pages463
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this