One group of initial responders maintained frequent, daily interactions with travelers throughout the COVID-19 crisis: aircraft rescue and firefighting teams. Recently, the first research of its nature indicates that those workers who viewed themselves as more vulnerable to COVID-19 experienced a higher number of infections during the pandemic.
“These professionals not only attend to fires and various emergencies aboard aircraft, but also render medical aid to individuals on the runway and within terminals across the United States — continuously, every day,” stated Aurora Le, who spearheaded the study, published in the journal WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation. “They are frequently neglected in research concerning first responders, despite facing a greater risk of COVID-19 exposure.”
Aircraft rescue and firefighting teams, the sole U.S. civilian fire safety personnel regulated by government regulations, are staffed according to airport size and the volume of daily flights. For instance, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, currently the world’s busiest air travel hub, employs approximately 260 of these personnel to manage an average of 286,000 travelers on around 2,100 arrivals and departures each day.
“We aimed to discover how those who acknowledged being diagnosed with the virus early in the pandemic viewed their risk of contracting it, the measures they undertook to avert this, and the resources available to assist them in doing so,” expressed Le, from the Texas A&M University School of Public Health.
For their research, executed in April 2021 — a year into the pandemic — Le and colleagues from Indiana University and Indiana State University conducted a cross-sectional online survey involving 155 aircraft rescue and firefighting professionals who had tested positive for COVID-19. Participants were sourced through the group’s email list. Over 83 percent of participants had not tested positive for COVID-19 at the time of the survey. More than 92 percent were male, and the majority identified as white, middle-aged, and reported their health status as good.
Safety practices were evaluated using a validated three-item safety compliance scale from Neal and Griffin for safety compliance, safety involvement, workplace mask usage, and public mask utilization. The perceived risk of COVID-19 infection was assessed using items from the Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale, as modified by Zhang and colleagues to determine this specific risk perception.
Prevention resources for COVID-19 at participants’ workplaces were adapted from the Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers survey. Six statements gauged training effectiveness, and nine items evaluated resource sufficiency. Participants also provided demographic details and health information prior to COVID-19.
The research team uncovered significant links between participants’ perceived risk factors for COVID-19, involving perceived severity and perceived susceptibility, and COVID-19 outcomes. Increased perceived susceptibility was correlated with a higher probability of COVID-19 infection, while higher perceived severity was associated with a reduced likelihood of reported COVID-19 cases.
“Our primary conclusion is that these first responders are more likely to prevent infection if they receive improved information regarding a disease, additional physical and emotional support for prevention, and augmented backing to influence their risk perceptions and preventive behaviors,” stated Le.
Le noted that these insights are pertinent for all types of illnesses, beyond just respiratory ailments like the one analyzed.
“Enhanced communication about the risks associated with any illness could motivate more of these workers to adopt protective measures. Additionally, amplifying focus on risk severity in interventions may serve as a strategy to avert injuries among these personnel,” she remarked.
Furthermore, supervisors of emergency response teams should prioritize infection control outcomes, Le suggested. This may encompass providing critical information, physical resources such as training, personal protective equipment, and mental health support like employee assistance initiatives.
“Although our study was cross-sectional, thus causation cannot be established, it did reveal significant relationships between these emergency responders’ perceived risk factors for COVID-19 and their real-world outcomes during the early stages of the pandemic,” remarked Le. “This information could inform strategies aimed at ensuring these workers’ safety during future respiratory and other health crises.”
The article Research Reveals Ways To Keep Emergency Responders Safe In Future Pandemics originally appeared on Texas A&M Today.