Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T11:07:58.456Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tornado Hazard Communication Disparities among Spanish-Speaking Individuals in an English-Speaking Community

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2012

Leslie Ahlborn ,
Jeffrey Michael Franc  and
D Sport Med
Leslie Ahlborn*
Affiliation:
Utah Valley Regional Medical Center – Trauma, Provo, Utah, USA and Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro,”Novara, Italy
Jeffrey Michael Franc
Affiliation:
Utah Valley Regional Medical Center – Trauma, Provo, Utah, USA and Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro,”Novara, Italy
D Sport Med
Affiliation:
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB Canada and Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro”, Novara, Italy
*
Correspondence: Leslie Ahlborn, PA-C MMSc, Utah Valley Regional Medical Center - Trauma, 1034 North 500 West, Provo, Utah 84604 USA, E-mail: lahlborn@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The state of Oklahoma, known for destructive tornados, has a native Spanish-speaking (NSS) population of approximately 180,241, of which 50% report being able to speak English “very well” (US Census Bureau). With almost 50% of these native Spanish-speaking persons being limited English proficient (LEP), their reception of tornado hazard communications may be restricted. This study conducted in northeast Oklahoma (USA) evaluates the association between native language and receiving tornado hazard communications.

Methods: This study was a cross-sectional survey conducted among a convenience sample of NSS and native English-speaking (NES) adults at Xavier Clinic and St. Francis Trauma Emergency Center in Tulsa, OK, USA from September 2009 through December 2009. Of the 82 surveys administered, 80 were returned, with 40 NES and 40 NSS participants. A scoring system (Severe Weather Information Reception (SWIR)) was developed to quantify reception of hazard information among the study participants (1–3 points = poor reception, 4–5 = adequate reception, 6–8 = excellent reception). Pearson’s chi-squared test was used to calculate differences between groups with Yates’ continuity correction applied where appropriate, and SWIR scores were analyzed using ANOVA. P-values <.05 were considered significant.

Results: NSS fluency in English was 25.6%. No significant association was found between native language and those who watch television, listen to radio, have a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) All Hazards radio or telephone, or are in audible range of a tornado siren. NSS were less likely to have Internet access (P < .004), and less likely to know of local telephone warning programs (P < .03). The mean NSS SWIR score was 3.2 (95% CI, 2.8-3.7) while LEP NSS averaged 2.8 (95% CI, 2.4-3.2). The mean NES SWIR score was 4.5 (95% CI, 4.1-5.0).

Conclusion: Results demonstrate a disparity in tornado warning reception between NSS and NES. Poor English proficiency was noted to be 75% among NSS, which is approximately 25% more than estimated by the US Census Bureau. This study demonstrates a need for emergency managers to recognize when appropriate and overcome communication disparities among limited English proficient populations.

Keywords

communication barrierdisasteremergency messagingemergency alert systememergency preventionhealth messagingSpanish languagetornado
Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 98 - 102
Copyright
Copyright Ahlborn © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Hazards & Vulnerability Research Institute, University of South Carolina. Spatial Hazard Events and Losses Database for the United States. http://www.sheldus.org. Accessed November 15, 2010.Google Scholar
2.Simmons, KM, Sutter, D.WSR-88D radar, tornado warnings, and tornado casualties. Weather and Forecasting. 2005;20:301–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Concannon, PR, Brooks, HE, Doswell, CA III. Climatological Risk of Strong and Violent Tornados in the United States. Paper presented at: American Meteorological Society Second Conference on Environmental Applications; 08-12 January 2000; Long Beach, California.Google Scholar
4.US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, Language Spoken at Home, 2006-2008. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed January 3, 2010.Google Scholar
5.US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, Age and Sex/Oklahoma, 2005-2009. http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed January11, 2011.Google Scholar
6.US Census Bureau. American Community Survey, Housing Unit Data Collection. http://www.census.gov/acs/www/SBasics/DataColl.htm. Accessed January 3, 2010.Google Scholar
7.Hammar, B, Schmidlin, TW. Response to warnings during the 3 May 1999 Oklahoma City tornado: Reasons and relative injury rates. Weather and Forecasting. 2002;17(3):577–581.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Andrulis, DP, Siddiqui, NJ, Gantner, JL. Preparing racially and ethnically diverse communities for public health emergencies. Health Affairs. 2007;26(5):1269–1279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Wingate, MS, Perry, EC, Campbell, PH, David, P, Weist, E.Identifying and protecting vulnerable populations in public health emergencies: Addressing gaps in education and training. Public Health Reports. 2007;122(3):422–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Rogers, GO, Sorensen, JH. Diffusion of emergency warnings. The Environmental Professional. 1991;10:281–294.Google Scholar