Terrorism_CBRNE Readiness_Biosecurity & Bioterrorism_8 (2)_2010

Determinants of Paramedic Response Readiness
for CBRNE Threats
Garry Stevens, Alison Jones, George Smith, Jenny Nelson, Kingsley Agho, Melanie Taylor,
and Beverley Raphael
Paramedics play a pivotal role in the response to major emergencies. Recent evidence indicates that their confidence and
willingness to respond to chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosives-related (CBRNE) incidents differs
from that relating to their ‘‘routine’’ emergency work. To further investigate the factors underpinning their readiness to
respond to CBRNE incidents, paramedics in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, were asked to complete a validated
online survey instrument. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to examine associated factors determining
readiness. The sample of 663 respondents was weighted to reflect the NSW paramedic population as a whole. The
univariate analysis indicated that gender, length of service, deployment concern, perceived personal resilience, CBRNE
training, and incident experience were significantly associated with perceived CBRNE response readiness. In the initial
multivariate analysis, significantly higher response readiness was associated with male gender, university education, and
greater length of service (10-15 years). In the final multivariate model, the combined effect of training/incident expe-
rience negated the significant effects observed in the initial model and, importantly, showed that those with recent
training reported higher readiness, irrespective of incident experience. Those with lower concern regarding CBRNE
deployment and those with higher personal resilience were significantly more likely to report higher readiness (Adjusted
Relative Risk [ARR] ¼ 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84-0.99; ARR ¼ 1.40, 95% CI: 1.11-1.72, respectively). These findings will
assist emergency medical planners in recognizing occupational and dispositional factors associated with enhanced
CBRNE readiness and highlight the important role of training in redressing potential readiness differences associated
with these factors.
Paramedics have an integral role in mass casualty
response. They may be called on to attend sites af-
fected by chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
explosives-related (CBRNE) agents, including their calcu-
lated use by terrorist groups.1
Identifying factors that sup-
port the CBRNE response readiness of paramedics will
assist workforce management and development with this
critical group of responders.
Garry J. Stevens, MClinPsych, Kingsley E. Agho, PhD, and Melanie R. Taylor, PhD, are all Senior Research Fellows; and Professor
Beverley Raphael, MD, is a Professor, Population Mental Health & Disasters; all are in the Disaster Response & Resilience Research
Group (DRR), School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Alison L. Jones, MD, is
Dean of the School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney. George T. Smith, BaHSC, is Director of Special Operations,
Ambulance Service of New South Wales, Rozelle, New South Wales. Jenny R. Nelson, MMgt, is Manager, Counter Terrorism, NSW
Police Force Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Command, Sydney, New South Wales.
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science
Volume 8, Number 2, 2010 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/bsp.2009.0061
193

Effective response to CBRNE terrorism and related inci-
dents requires a ready and willing prehospital workforce.
However, recent evidence indicates that this worker
population may not always feel prepared, or willing, to re-
spond to such incidents.2-4
Their reluctance could under-
mine the ability of the healthcare system to meet surge
capacity needs anticipated for incidents of this kind.5
A re-
cent nationally representative sample of paramedics showed
that concern about infection or contamination predicted
significantly lower response willingness, compared to natural
disasters such as earthquakes or floods.2
Medical staff sur-
veyed about their willingness to work in field hospitals
during mass casualty incidents were less willing to do so if
CBRNE agents were involved.6
Perceived risk, knowledge of
the operating environment, and self-assessed capacity to
provide the care required were the factors that most strongly
affected willingness to work in such environments.
While safety and capability concerns have been shown to
consistently affect response readiness,7
many of the issues
identified are amenable to intervention.8
For example, in-
adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and training
have been identified as key constraints of paramedics’
CBRNE preparedness and response willingness.2-3
This
was illustrated during the 1991 Gulf War when Israeli re-
sponders faced the prospect of attacks with ballistic missiles
potentially armed with chemical and biological warheads.
While 42% of healthcare workers indicated willingness to
work in this context, this increased to 86% where it was
perceived that adequate ‘‘safety measures’’ and ‘‘protective
equipment’’ would be provided.9
Paramedics with recent CBRNE training consistently re-
port higher willingness to respond to a range of CBR sce-
narios.7
Moreover, response willingness generally increases as
training quality increases.2,3
Reilly and colleagues observed
that paramedics’ CBRNE response ‘‘comfort level’’ increased
with progressive levels of training—that is, awareness level,
simulation, and ‘‘hands-on’’ practice, with the latter format
associated with significantly better outcomes for biological
and chemical incidents.3
It has been argued that clear risk
assessment frameworks and practical information about how
to protect self and family represent key training outcomes
likely to increase response willingness.2
Dispositional factors such as fear or concern have also been
shown to adversely affect the readiness of emergency re-
sponders, while factors such as personal resilience—that is,
the capacity to adapt and respond under conditions of stress
or threat—may be associated with higher readiness. Qureshi
et al found that fear for self and family was the factor asso-
ciated with the lowest willingness to work during disaster
events among healthcare workers, who also rated biological
and chemical incidents as the event types of greatest concern.8
Paton et al suggest that terrorism, and particularly its
CBRNE forms, represent qualitatively different, high threat
environments in which individual and team resilience is likely
to be critical to the response.10,11
They propose that adaptive
capacities under conditions of stress be actively identified and
developed by organizations prior to critical incidents to
support optimal response and post-incident adjustment and
learning. In a similar vein, specific occupational factors, such
as years of work experience, rank, and education level, have
been associated with both positive adaptation to stress and
increased risk status in first responder groups12,13
and are also
examined in this study.
To support workforce development, the aim of this study
was to identify demographic, occupational, and dispositional
factors associated with paramedic CBRNE response readi-
ness. A number of studies have assessed response willingness
in this context in order to estimate health workforce avail-
ability, but there has been a relative neglect of the competency
perceptions underpinning the actual response of these
workers.3,7
Competence is critical to the overall readiness of
paramedics in this context, reflecting officers’ perceived
ability to perform their operational role effectively14
and,
consistent with self-efficacy concepts, the level of effort and
persistence likely to be invested in facing such challenges.10
Accordingly, in this study ‘‘response readiness’’ is defined
as the perceived competence to complete functional roles
within CBRNE operational environments, including sus-
pected terrorism. It was hypothesized that specific occu-
pational factors (CBRNE incident experience and CBRNE
training) and dispositional factors (lower CBRNE deploy-
ment concern and higher personal resilience) would be
associated with higher CBRNE response readiness.
Methods
A general population study by Canadian researchers assess-
ing perceived likelihood, concern, and preparedness re-
garding CBRNE terrorism and related incidents was the
basis for the survey instrument used in this study.15
To
these core items were added validated questions regarding
concerns for self or family if deployed to a CBRNE
incident and perceived competence to respond to CBRNE
terrorism-related incidents; these were adapted from Di-
Maggio et al and Reilly et al, respectively.2,3
Wording in the
latter item, ‘‘comfort level in responding,’’ was changed to
‘‘feel competent to respond,’’ to better reflect the outcome
variable of interest. Incident response experience was as-
sessed with a single question concerning any prior atten-
dance at a scene affected by the accidental or deliberate
release of any CBRNE agent/material. The final question
set was established in consultation with NSW Ambulance
HAZMAT trainers and specialists. Survey protocols and
informed consent procedures were approved by the ethics
committees of the Sydney South West Area Health Service
(Protocol No. X08-0166) and the University of Western
Sydney (Approval No. H5319).
This study was based on a cross-sectional design and
consisted of an internet-based survey that was forwarded by
e-mail to all state-based paramedic officers in New South
Wales in September 2008. The target population was all
DETERMINANTS OF PARAMEDIC RESPONSE READINESS FOR CBRNE THREATS
194 Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science

state-employed paramedics whose role entailed active oper-
ational duties at the time of the survey. The invitation letter
contained background information about the survey and an
internet web link to the online instrument, which was on
a secure server and provided through Survey Monkey
(www.surveymonkey.com). The survey was conducted over a
4-week period between September 29 and October 31, 2008.
Outcome Measurements
Definitions of response willingness adopted in previous
studies have often not directly assessed functional compe-
tence.2
To address our research questions, response readiness
was selected as the outcome variable of interest in the cur-
rent analysis and was based on self-rated competence to
respond operationally to each of the 5 (CBRNE) terrorism
scenarios—for example, ‘‘Within my work role I feel com-
petent to respond to the effects of [chemical] terrorism.’’
Terrorism was selected as the index CBRNE event, as
this allowed assessment of perceived competencies in rela-
tion to these agents or materials generally, as well as specific
readiness associated with their deliberate use. Examples of
specific agents or materials (eg, mustard agents and sarin
nerve gas for chemical incidents) were also provided in the
question prologues to establish a common focus and set of
operational assumptions. Responses were scored on a 5-
point Likert scale (‘‘not at all,’’ ‘‘a little,’’ ‘‘moderately,’’
‘‘very,’’ and ‘‘extremely’’). The ‘‘response readiness’’ indi-
cator was calculated as the combined score across the 5
(CBRNE) response scenarios. Higher scores within the
score range (5-25) reflected higher response readiness.
Study Variables
Demographic, occupational, and personal disposition fac-
tors were examined to determine their associations with
perceived CBRNE response readiness. The demographic
and occupational factors were gender, age, marital and
parental status, educational qualifications, length of para-
medic service, service location (metro, nonmetro), rank,
recent CBRNE training (within the previous 3 years), and
previous response experience with 1 or more types of
CBRNE incident (‘‘incident experience’’).
Dispositional factors consisted of separately rated con-
cern for self and concern for family if deployed to a
CBRNE incident (‘‘deployment concern’’) and self-rated
personal resilience. Responses regarding deployment con-
cern were dichotomized, with the responses of ‘‘very’’ and
‘‘extremely’’ combined into the indicator of interest (ie,
high concern).
Personal resilience was measured using the abbreviated
Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the CD-RISC2.16
This
validated, 2-item version of the scale measures perceptions of
stress coping ability, with separate items assessing the per-
ceived ability to continue to function effectively in stressful
circumstances and the perceived capacity to adapt to change.
The CD-RISC2 has been shown to be able to discriminate
between general population samples and individuals experi-
encing clinical anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), conditions known to be associated with
stress-related reductions in coping. This scale is also sensitive
to increases in personal resilience associated with pharmaco-
logical treatment for PTSD, indicating that resilience is
modifiable in the context of such treatment.16,17
The scale
employs a 5-point response range (0-4). Based on established
community norms,16
an individual’s summed scores in the
range of 7-8 were regarded as representing high personal re-
silience in the current study, while scores of 0-6 are consistent
with experiencing low/moderate levels of personal resilience.
Data Analysis
All state-employed paramedics in New South Wales were
invited to participate in the survey. The precise number who
received questionnaires cannot be established as various
members were on leave during the study period (eg, recre-
ational leave, staff development, sick leave). Of the com-
pleted questionnaires, 663 were suitable for analysis, which
represented approximately one quarter of the estimated on-
duty paramedic workforce with current operational duties
(2,900) during the study period. The survey data were
weighted to adjust for gender and the 4 different NSW
paramedic locations (metro, northern, western, southern), in
order to reflect the NSW paramedic population as a whole.
Ratings of perceived personal competence to respond
operationally to each of the 5 (CBRNE) terrorism scenarios
were summed to form a response readiness score, as de-
scribed above. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrated
that the internal consistency of each item was satisfactory
(explosive/conventional, 0.93; chemical, 0.87; biological,
0.87; radiological, 0.89; and nuclear, 0.90). Exploratory
data analysis was conducted using frequency distribution
for categorical variables, graphs and summary statistics for
continuous variables to check the normality of the data.
Preliminary analysis showed that the data were skewed,
which violated ordinary linear regression assumptions, and
therefore Poisson regression was used in the analysis.
In the initial stage, all of the demographic variables were
entered into the model, and backward elimination was used
to remove nonsignificant factors. In the second stage, com-
bined indicators of incident experience and training were
assessed, after controlling for significant demographic vari-
ables. In the third stage, deployment concern was assessed
after adjusting for significant demographic variables and the
combined indictors of incident experience and training.
Personal resilience variables were entered into the final
model to determine the effect of demographic, deployment
concern, and the combined incident experience/training
variables on the CBRNE readiness of paramedic officers.
STEVENS ET AL.
Volume 8, Number 2, 2010 195

Survey means and univariate analyses were performed
using Poisson regression analysis to determine the mean and
relative risk, respectively, of each possible associated factor.
This was followed by multivariate analyses, to examine the
independent effect of each variable after controlling for other
covariates. Relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were
determined for each associated factor. The statistical analyses
were performed using STATA/MP version 10.0 (Stata
Corporation, College Station, TX, 2007), and Poisson re-
gression analyses were fitted using STATA survey commands
to adjust for the probability of the 4 different NSW para-
medic locations and gender. We considered p 0.05 as
statistically significant. All statistical tests were 2-tailed.
Results
Characteristics of the Population
Sampled
As summarized in Table 1, the majority of paramedic re-
spondents were male (68.5%). The locations of respon-
dents were nearly equally represented in the sample.
Approximately 83% were married or partnered, and 56.3%
had completed a university qualification at the bachelor’s
level or above. The proportion of paramedics who were in
the 16- to 24-year age category was relatively low (2.1%),
while those in the 35- to 44-year age category represented
the largest respondent group (37%). Approximately 25%
of paramedics had recently completed CBRNE training (ie,
within the past 3 years), and of that group, 75% also re-
ported CBRNE incident response experience, compared to
43% of those without recent training.
Approximately half of the respondents had children
living with them at home. About half (50.5%) reported
high personal concern regarding potential deployment to a
known or suspected CBRNE terrorist incident. Concern
that family members could be affected by such an incident
(ie, via secondary contamination or infection) was mar-
ginally higher (51.4%). Despite these specific concerns, the
majority of paramedics also reported high levels of personal
resilience (72.4%). It was noted that there were no major
incidents reported in NSW during the period of the survey
(late October to late November 2008), particularly re-
garding potential terrorist incidents or activity, which may
have affected the validity of the survey results.
The mean response competence ratings and confidence
intervals for each type of CBRNE terrorism incident are
presented in Figure 1. Incidents involving conventional
explosives were associated with moderate self-rated response
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the paramedic sample (N ¼ 3,589)a
Characteristic n % Characteristic n %
Locationb
Length of service in years (n ¼ 3,578)
Nonmetropolitan 1,801 50.2 0-4 799 22.3
Metropolitan 1,788 49.8 5-9 690 19.3
Gender 10-14 538 15.0
Male 2,458 68.5 15-20 344 9.6
Female 1,131 31.5 20-24 548 15.3
Age (n ¼ 3,530) 25þ 659 18.4
16-24 75 2.1 Rank
25-34 833 23.6 Ambulance manager 706 19.7
35-44 1,310 37.1 Paramedic 2,883 80.3
45-54 1,001 28.4 Concern for self if CBRNE deployed
55þ 311 8.8 No 1,553 49.5
Highest formal qualification Yes 1,581 50.5
High school/technical college 1,567 43.7 Concern for family if CBRNE deployed
University 2,022 56.3 No 1,525 48.6
Children in household Yes 1,615 51.4
Yes 1,788 49.8 CBRNE/HAZMAT training/incident response
No 1,801 50.2 Response and training 679 18.9
No. people under 18 in household Response without training 1,160 32.3
1 526 14.7 No response but trained 215 6.0
2 2,214 61.7 No response and no training 1,535 42.8
3-4 611 17.0 Personal resilience
5 or more 131 3.7 Low/moderate 989 27.6
None 107 3.0 High 2,600 72.4
Relationship status (n ¼ 3,574)
Married/partnered 2,966 83.0
Separated/divorced 241 6.8
Never married 367 10.3
a
Weighted total was 3,589 unless otherwise stated within brackets.
b
Nonmetropolitan: Northern, Western, and Southern districts, NSW; Metropolitan: Sydney metropolitan region.

competence and were significantly higher than the ratings
for all other agent/material classes, which were, in descending
order; chemical and biological (which did not differ statis-
tically), radiological, and nuclear incidents.
Univariate Analyses
Univariate analyses of CBRNE response readiness scores by
demographic, occupational, and dispositional risk factor
characteristics are shown in Table 2. Mean readiness scores
were significantly higher in males than in females (10.7 vs
9.4), in those with recent CBRNE training compared to
those without recent training (13.5 vs 9.2), and in those
with CBRNE response experience compared to those
without such experience (11.3 vs 8.8). Training was a
stronger predictor of response readiness than incident ex-
perience (Adjusted Relative Risk [ARR] 1.25 vs 1.12).
Paramedics with recent training and incident experience
reported significantly higher readiness than those with in-
cident experience but without training (13.6 vs 11.0).
Importantly, in the absence of CBRNE response experi-
ence, trained paramedics reported significantly higher
readiness than those without training (13.2 vs 7.9).
Those with lower CBRNE deployment concern for self
reported significantly higher readiness than those with high
deployment concern (11.3 vs 9.8). Paramedics who had
intermediate (10-15 years) and long lengths of paramedic
service (greater than 20 years) reported significantly higher
readiness than did those with less than 10 years’ experience.
Those with high personal resilience scores reported higher
readiness than did those with low/moderate personal resi-
lience scores (11.7 vs 6.4).
Multivariate Analyses
The results of the multivariate analysis are shown in Table 3.
In the initial multivariate analysis, the following factors
predicted significantly higher CBRNE response readiness:
male gender (ARR ¼ 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98), university
level qualifications (ARR ¼ 1.10, 95% CI: 1.01-1.19), and
intermediate duration paramedic work experience (ie,
10-14 years compared to 0-9 years) (ARR ¼ 1.17, 95%
CI: 1.03-1.34).
When demographic, deployment concern, incident
experience/training indicators, and the personal resilience
variables were controlled for in the final multivariate model,
interestingly, the effects of gender, education, and experi-
ence were no longer significant. The final multivariate
analysis indicated that paramedics with CBRNE training
and response experience reported significantly higher
readiness than those with incident response experience only
(ARR ¼ 0.83, CI: 0.76-0.90). Those with low concerns for
themselves regarding terrorism-related CBRNE deploy-
ment had significantly higher readiness scores than those
with high concerns for themselves (ARR ¼ 0.91, CI: 0.84-
0.99). Those with high personal resilience reported signif-
icantly higher readiness (ARR ¼ 1.40, CI: 1.24-1.52) than
did those with low/moderate personal resilience.
Discussion
This survey provides the first Australian report on the fac-
tors associated with paramedic perceptions of response
readiness for CBRNE terrorism and related incidents.
The state representative sample, appropriate adjustment for
Figure 1. Weighted mean and 95% CI of perceived competence to respond to CBRNE terrorism by threat type
STEVENS ET AL.

Table 2. Survey mean and univariate analyses of CBRNE response readiness by demographic, occupational, and personal disposition variables
Characteristic Mean Relative Risk (95% CI)a
Location
Nonmetropolitan 10.2 1.00
Metropolitan 10.4 0.95 (0.85,1.06)
Gender
Male 10.7 1.00
Female 9.4 0.88 (0.80,0.97)
Age
16-24 9.4 1.00
25-34 10.2 1.09 (0.77,1.55)
35-44 10.3 1.11 (0.79,1.56)
45-54 10.8 1.17 (0.83,1.65)
55þ 10.4 1.13 (0.78,1.64)
Highest formal qualification
High school/technical college 9.9 1.00
University 10.6 1.07 (0.99,1.15)
Children in household
Yes 10.4 1.00
No 10.2 0.99 (0.91,1.07)
No. people under 18 living in household
1 8.6 1.00
2 9.3 1.08 (0.86,1.35)
3-4 10.9 1.26 (1.03,1.54)
5 or more 9.7 1.12 (0.90,1.40)
None 8.1 0.93 (0.71,1.22)
Relationship status
Married/partnered 10.4 1.00
Separated/divorced 9.7 0.93 (0.81,1.07)
Never married 9.4 0.90 (0.79,1.02)
Length of service in years
0-4 9.2 1.00
5-9 10.5 1.14 (1.00,1.29)
10-14 11.1 1.20 (1.05,1.37)
15-20 9.9 1.07 (0.92,1.24)
20-24 10.6 1.15 (1.01,1.31)
25þ 10.8 1.17 (1.03,1.31)
Rank
Ambulance manager 10.3 1.00
Paramedic 10.3 1.00 (0.91,1.11)
Concern for self if CBRNE deployed
No 11.3 1.00
Yes 9.8 0.88 (0.82,0.95)
Concern for family if CBRNE deployed
No 11.0 1.00
Yes 10.1 0.92 (0.84,1.02)
CBRNE training
No 9.2 1.0
Yes 13.5 1.25 (1.17,1.35)
CBRNE incident response
No 8.8 1.0
Yes 11.3 1.12 (1.01,1.25)
CBRNE training/incident response
Response and training 13.6 1.00
Response without training 11.0 0.81 (0.75,0.88)
No response but trained 13.2 0.97 (0.86,1.09)
No response and no training 7.9 0.58 (0.53,0.63)
Personal resilienceb
Low/moderate 6.4 1.00
High 11.7 1.84 (1.70,1.99)
a
Relative risk ratings statistically greater than 1.00 indicate higher response readiness, and ratings statistically less than 1.00 indicate lower response
readiness (95% confidence intervals [CI] that include 1.00 indicate a nonsignificant result).
b
Personal resilience was measured using the CD-RISC2. Values range from 0 to 8, with 7-8 considered high personal resilience and 0-6 as
low/moderate personal resilience.

sampling weight, and use of validated items are particular
strengths of this study. The results highlight important
differences in perceived CBRNE response readiness within
the paramedic population associated with key occupational
and dispositional risk factors.
The univariate analysis indicated that recent CBRNE
training and high perceived personal resilience were the
factors associated with the highest level of CBRNE re-
sponse readiness. Importantly, although the multivariate
analysis identified female gender, nontertiary education,
and shorter length of service as risk factors for response
readiness, training was found to negate these effects. Such
findings are of particular practical value in that the ac-
quisition of core response competencies, via training, is
an area over which organizations have considerable con-
trol.3,18
These results also support other recent findings
that the provision, timeliness, and quality of paramedic
CBRNE training is associated with both higher willing-
ness to respond to such incidents2
and greater confidence
in operational competencies.3
The latter factor, in parti-
cular, relates to the readiness measure employed in this
study.
Consistent with our original hypotheses, the results of
the final multivariate model showed that perceived CBRNE
response readiness was predicted by the following factors:
combined CBRNE response experience and recent train-
ing, lower concern for self regarding CBRNE deployment,
and high personal resilience. A notable exception to the
predicted relationships was that high concern for family
specifically related to these deployments did not signifi-
cantly affect perceived readiness.
Although training emerged as a strong predictor of
readiness, the findings regarding CBRNE response experi-
ence were more equivocal. We anticipated that response
experience might make an independent contribution to
readiness perceptions beyond the effects of training alone,
but this was not the case. Both training and experience were
significant univariate factors. However, when examined as a
combined indicator, CBRNE response experience added
little to the overall effects of training (see Table 3).
More importantly, among those without recent training,
having CBRNE incident experience did not result in sig-
nificantly higher response readiness for potential CBRNE
terrorist incidents. This could indicate a perception among
Table 3. Poisson modeling of total CBRNE response readiness scores: Adjusted Relative Risk
Characteristic
Model 1a
Model 2 b Model 3 c
Model 4d
RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI)
Gender
Male 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Female 0.88 (0.80,0.98) 0.95 (0.87,1.04) 0.93 (0.85,1.02) 0.95 (0.87,1.04)
Highest formal qualification
High school/technical college 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
University 1.10 (1.01,1,19) 1.06 (0.99,1.14) 1.07 (0.99,1.15) 1.06 (0.99,1.14)
Length of service in years
0-4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
5-9 1.13 (1.00,1.28) 1.06 (0.94,1.18) 1.06 (0.95,1.19) 1.04 (0.93,1.17)
10-14 1.17 (1.03,1.34) 1.06 (0.94,1.20) 1.09 (0.96,1.24) 1.08 (0.96,1.22)
15-20 1.03 (0.89,1.19) 0.93 (0.81,1.07) 0.95 (0.82,1.09) 0.96 (0.83,1.04)
20-24 1.14 (1.00,1.29) 1.02 (0.90,1.16) 1.03 (0.91,1.17) 1.03 (0.91,1.16)
25þ 1.12 (0.99,1.27) 1.04 (0.93,1.16) 1.05 (0.93,1.18) 1.07 (0.95,1.20)
CBRN/HAZMAT training/incident response
Response and training 1.00 1.00 1.00
Response without training 0.82 (0.75,0.89) 0.83 (0.76,0.90) 0.83 (0.76,0.90)
No response but trained 0.99 (0.88,1.12) 0.99 (0.88,1.13) 0.98 (0.86,1.11)
No response and no training 0.59 (0.54,0.65) 0.69 (0.62,0.76) 0.77 (0.69,0.85)
Concern for self if CBRNE deployed
No 1.00 1.00
Yes 0.92 (0.84,1.00) 0.91 (0.84,0.99)
Concern for family if CBRNE deployed
No 1.00 1.00
Yes 0.99 (0.91,1.08) 1.00 (0.92,1.08)
Personal resilience
Low/moderate 1.00
High 1.40 (1.24,1.57)
a
Model 1—Demographic factors associated with CBRNE response readiness scores.
b
Model 2—Model 1 plus training.
c
Model 3—Model 2 plus concern.
d
Model 4—Model 3 plus resilience.
STEVENS ET AL.

these workers that knowledge gained from ‘‘routine’’
CBRNE incidents or alerts does not specifically enhance
preparedness for CBRNE-related terrorism or, similarly,
that incident debriefings do not usefully extend lessons
learned to such threats.
Further examination of this issue is needed, however, to
determine if the nature of CBRNE experience (unmeasured
in this study) may be an important consideration. For ex-
ample, higher cumulative CBRNE incident experience
and/or response to particular agents or materials, in the
absence of recent training, may be found to be associated
with higher perceived readiness.
While CBRNE incident experience may make these
operational environments more familiar, Paton et al argue
that the absence of training may limit the organizing
structure workers are able bring to high-threat incidents
and could promote a perceived lack of control at these
times.10
As noted, competency-based or hands-on training
may be particularly effective, primarily because it pro-
motes the integration of theory and application through
experiential learning, consolidating skill sets through
practice and feedback.18,19
Unlike real event exposure,
training allows error correction and the psychomotor
mastery of complex skills (eg, patient care while wearing
PPE) in a safe learning environment.3
This is consistent
with the specific elements of CBRNE training thought to
enhance response willingness: the provision of detailed
risk assessment frameworks and specific actions to protect
oneself and one’s family.2
Future research could identify
the training modalities that are most effective in devel-
oping such competencies, including their effective com-
ponents (eg, situational awareness skills, complex decision
making), and also the skills development relationship
between training and incident experience. One practical
implication of the current findings, however, may be the
preferential CBRNE deployment of personnel with recent
training over those with incident experience alone.
The aims of CBRNE terrorism are inherently
psychological—that is, designed to invoke fear.20
Thus,
enhancing the capacity of responders to adapt to such
threats is a logical form of counterterrorism. Despite this,
the study of protective ‘‘dispositional’’ factors in this re-
sponse context remains limited.21
In this study, high
personal resilience and low concern for self regarding
CBRNE deployment both predicted higher perceived
readiness. This supports other findings showing that high
perceived threat or concern predicted lower CBRNE re-
sponse willingness among paramedics and healthcare
workers.2
The Qureshi et al study of healthcare workers8
showed a similar result regarding deployment-related
concerns for family, but an equivalent finding was not
observed in this study. This may be accounted for by
different exposure perceptions of paramedics and hospital-
based workers, where the latter may perceive greater
exposure risk including secondary infection and contam-
ination. It is relevant in this regard that the Qureshi study
detailed findings from the 2003 SARS epidemic in
Canada.
Personal resilience emerged as one of the strongest
predictors of response readiness in this study. This finding
indicates that an individual’s perceived general capacity to
adapt to stressful circumstances correlates highly with self-
rated readiness for CBRNE terrorism. There is little
empirical information available regarding resilience-
mediated response readiness within emergency medical
personnel, although Paton et al have examined these
factors in recent modeling of police readiness for terror-
ism.10
They define resilience in this operational context as
‘‘adaptive capacity’’ and suggest that adaptation to novel,
high-threat environments is mediated by the appraisal
framework (‘‘schema’’) an individual is able to employ at
such times and how readily it guides interpretations and
actions.
In the current study, both resilience and response read-
iness were perceptions reported by participants, and it is
possible that the observed association reflects a common
underlying construct, such as self-efficacy. To further test
the current findings, a future study could assess actual or
simulated incident response to determine if perceived re-
silience predicts demonstrated CBRNE competencies.
Such a finding may have implications for recruitment and
selection processes.
This study has several limitations. Our definition of
‘‘readiness’’ reflected the aim of assessing perceived response
competence regarding CBRNE terrorism, but the extent to
which this may be associated with actual CBRNE task
performance remains unclear. While higher perceived
competence is known to be associated with enhanced task
performance in some organizational settings,22
specific evi-
dence for this in the emergency response context remains
limited. Similarly, ‘‘readiness’’ in this study does not specifi-
cally incorporate response willingness, which is well re-
presented in the available literature. The cross-sectional design
of this study captures only a snapshot view of the assessed
indices,and nofirmconclusions canbemaderegardingcauses.
Although equal weighting was given to the 5 competence
ratings (CBRNE) constituting the readiness indicator, or-
ganizations may not necessarily seek equivalent levels of
preparedness across these risk scenarios. Like the current
findings, other recent paramedic data show higher self-rated
preparedness for conventional and chemical incidents
and somewhat lower preparedness for biological and
radiological/nuclear incidents,23
likely reflecting readiness
priorities based on broader risk assessments. This particular
finding also had the effect of lowering overall readiness
ratings in the current study.
Training was considered recent if it occurred within the
past 3 years. However, ‘‘residual’’ CBRNE training effects
over longer periods (eg, 3-5 years) may have affected the
current findings. As noted, it is also possible that the ben-
efits to readiness of response experience are cumulative,
which would not have been evident based on the dichot-

omized response set for this question. Further research
could explore the relative benefits of CBRNE incident
experience using a more detailed measure.
It was notable that low/moderate self-rated resilience was
associated with the lowest readiness score of any group.
This study did not specifically assess mental health or re-
lated occupational health issues, and confounders such as
clinical/subclinical depression or low job satisfaction may
also have affected the current findings.24
Our primary in-
tent was to examine general adaptive capacity (resilience) as
a potential ‘‘protective’’ factor supporting CBRNE readi-
ness that may be further developed. However, these pre-
liminary findings suggest that lower levels of personal
resilience represent a distinct risk factor for CBRNE re-
sponse readiness and warrant further research to identify
contributing factors, their effects on wider role function,
and their potential remediation.
Conclusion
The results of this study support other recent findings
showing that paramedic CBRNE training is associated with
higher perceived readiness to respond to CBRNE terrorism
and related incidents. This study adds to the existing
literature detailed information about the specific effects of
occupational and dispositional factors on such readiness and
how factors such as training and incident experience may
mediate these effects. The current findings support the sug-
gestion that training allows responders to more readily per-
ceive these situations as comprehensible and actionable,
whereas incident experience alone may not confer such
benefits. This information will assist emergency medical
planners in recognizing and developing strategic and work-
force factors associated with enhanced CBRNE readiness.
Acknowledgments
This study was partially funded by the National Security,
Science and Technology Branch of the Department of
Prime Minister and Cabinet (NSST Grant No. 06-062).
The analysis is part of the first author’s thesis for a doctoral
dissertation with the College of Health and Science at the
University of Western Sydney. The authors would like to
thank the Ambulance Service of New South Wales for their
assistance with this study and the members of the service
who participated. Our particular thanks to Peter Croft,
who assisted with question development, and Gerard Azar
for his technical assistance. The authors declare that they
have no competing interests.
References
1. Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs
Trade. Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to Australia.
2004. http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/terrorism/chapter2.
html. Accessed December 10, 2009.
2. DiMaggio C, Markeson D, Loo GT, Redlener I. The willingess
of U.S. emergency medical technicians to respond to terrorist
incidents. Biosecur Bioterror 2005;3(4):331-337.
3. Reilly MJ, Markenson D, DiMaggio C. Comfort level of
emergency medical service providers in responding to
weapons of mass destruction events: impact of training and
equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med 2007;22(4):297-303.
4. Smith E, Morgans A, Qureshi K, Burkle F, Archer F.
Paramedics’ perceptions of risk and willingness to work
during disasters. Aust J Emerg Manage 2008;23(2):14-20.
5. Hick JL, Barbera JA, Kelen GD. Refining surge capacity:
conventional, contingency, and crisis capacity. Disaster Med
Public Health Prep 2009;3(Suppl 1):S59-S67.
6. Lanzilotti S, Galanais D, Leoni N, et al. Hawaii medical
professionals assessment. Hawaii Med J 2002;61:162-173.
7. Chaffee M. Willingness of health care personnel to work in a
disaster: an integrative review of the literature. Disaster Med
Public Health Prep 2009;3:42-56.
8. Qureshi K, Gershon R, Sherman M, et al. Health care
workers’ ability and willingness to report to duty during
catastrophic disasters. J Urban Health 2005;82(3):378-388.
9. Shapira Y, Marganitt B, Roxiner, I et al. Willingness of staff
to report to their hospital duties following an unconven-
tional missile attack: a state-wide survey. Isr Med Sci
1991;27:704-711.
10. Paton D, Violanti JM, Johnston P, Burke KJ, Clarke J,
Keenan D. Stress shield: a model of police resiliency. Int J
Emerg Ment Health 2008;10(2):95-107.
11. Burke KJ, Paton D. Well-being in protective services personnel:
organisational influences. Australasian Journal of Disaster and
Trauma Studies 2006;6. http://www.massey.ac.nz/*trauma/
issues/2006-2/burke.htm. Accessed December 10, 2009.
12. Bounds R. Factors affecting perceived stress in pre-hospital
emergency medical services. Californian J Health Promot
2006;4(2):113-131.
13. Regehr C, Hill J, Knott T, Sault B. Social support, self-
efficacy and trauma in new recruits and experienced fire-
fighters. Stress and Health 2003;19;189-193.
14. Spreitzer GM. Toward a common ground in defining em-
powerment. Research in Organizational Change and Devel-
opment 1997;10:31-62.
15. Lemyre L, Turner MC, Lee JEC, Krewski D. Public per-
ception of terrorism threats and related information sources
in Canada: implications for the management of terrorism
risks. J Risk Res 2006;9(7):755-774.
16. Vaishnavi S, Connor K, Davidson J. An abbreviated version of
the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the CD-
RISC2: psychometric properties and applications in psycho-
pharmacological trials. Psychiatr Res 2007;152:293-297.
17. Connor K, Davidson J. Development of a new resilience
scale: the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RSIC).
Depress Anxiety 2003;18:76-82.
18. Markenson D, DiMaggio C, Redlener I. Preparing health
professions students for terrorism, disaster, and public health
emergencies: core competencies. Acad Med 2005;80(6):
517-526.
19. Blanchard PN, Thacker JW. Effective Training. 2nd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1999:46-50.
20. Stein BD, Tanielian TL, Eisenman DP, et al. Emotional and
behavioural consequences of bioterrorism: planning a public
health response. Milbank Q 2004;82(3):413-455.
STEVENS ET AL.

21. Lemyre L, Corneil W, Clement J, et al. A psychosocial risk
assessment and management framework to enhance response
to CBRN terrorism threats and attacks. Biosecur Bioterror
2005;3(4):316-330.
22. Gist ME, Mitchell TR. Self-efﬁcacy: a theoretical analysis
of its determinants and malleability. Acad Manage Rev 1992;
17:183-211.
23. Chaput CJ, Deluhery MR, Stake CE, Martens KA, Cichon
ME. Disaster training for prehospital providers. Prehosp
Emerg Care 2007;11(4):458-465.
24. Regher C, Millar D. Situation critical: high demand, low
control, and low support in paramedic organizations.
Traumatology 2007;13(1):49-58.
Manuscript received December 11, 2009;
accepted for publication May 5, 2010.
Address correspondence to:
Garry Stevens
University of Western Sydney
School of Medicine
Locked Bag 1797
Penrith South DC
New South Wales
3215 Australia
E-mail: g.stevens@uws.edu.au

Terrorism_CBRNE Readiness_Biosecurity & Bioterrorism_8 (2)_2010

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (14)

Terrorism_CBRNE Readiness_Biosecurity & Bioterrorism_8 (2)_2010