Back to Annual Meeting

Back to Annual Meeting

APHA Scientific Session and Event Listing

Rebecca J. W. Cline, PhD¹, Lisa Berry-Bobovski, BA¹, Tanis Hernandez, MSW², Brad Black, MD², Ann G. Schwartz, PhD, MPH³, and John C. Ruckdeschel, MD⁴. (1) Communication and Behavioral Oncology Program, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Hudson Webber Cancer Research Center, Rm. 540, 4100 John R Street, Detroit, MI 48201, (313) 576-8703, cliner@karmanos.org, (2) Center for Asbestos Related Disease, 214 East 3rd Street, Libby, MT 59923, (3) Population Sciences, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Prentis Cancer Research Center, 110 East Warren Avenue, Detroit, MI 48201, (4) Karmanos Cancer Institute, Hudson Webber Cancer Research Center, 2nd Floor, 4100 John R Street, Detroit, MI 48201

Background: Exposure to amphibole asbestos in Libby, Montana constitutes what EPA has called the “worst environmental disaster” in U.S. history. More than 265 people have died; additional hundreds have asbestos-related disease (ARD), many without occupational (vermiculite mine-related) exposure; the disaster continues to unfold. This small community has faced an array of crises and stressors affecting physical, mental/emotional, financial, and interpersonal well-being. Multiple generations within families are affected. Unlike other personal crises, where social support might come from unaffected others, this entire community is affected. Purpose: This investigation analyzed social-support processes in the context of a community experiencing a “slow-motion technological disaster.” Significance: Large bodies of research address: psychosocial consequences (e.g., PTSD) for populations experiencing rapidly-striking natural disasters and social support processes and effects for individuals in personal crises. But little is known about psychosocial consequences of communities jeopardized by slow-motion disasters, and even less about associated social-support processes. Methods: Focus groups, comprised of people with ARD, with mine-related and non-mine related exposures; family members of people with ARD; and healthy people with no ARD in their families, were conducted in Libby. Results: Participants described social support processes, both in general and specific to “the asbestos problem.” Participants identified challenges unique to the latter, including: helpful versus unhelpful/harmful support attempts; strains on social support resources; personal/interpersonal issues associated with seeking/offering support; and consequences of seeking/offering social support. Conclusion: Community-level slow-motion disasters create unique psychosocial challenges. The Libby, MT experience yields guidance for developing effective personal coping responses and community-level interventions.

Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of this session the participant will be able to identify and understand

(
• challenges to social support processes and resources associated with a slow-motion technological disaster versus a rapidly-striking natural disaster, (
• effective and ineffective naturally-evolving social support processes at personal and community levels, and (
• implications for personal and community-level responses.

Keywords: Communication, Disasters

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No