156322 “I'm watching each one of my family members die:” Public health consequences of family dynamics in a slow-motion technological disaster

Wednesday, November 7, 2007: 9:15 AM

Heather Orom, PhD , Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI
Rebecca J. W. Cline, PhD , Communication and Behavioral Oncology Program, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI
Lisa Berry-Bobovski, MA , Communication and Behavioral Oncology Program, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI
Tanis Hernandez, MSW , Center for Asbestos Related Disease, Libby, MT
Brad Black, MD , Center for Asbestos Related Disease, Libby, MT
Ann G. Schwartz, PhD, MPH , Population Sciences, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI
John C. Ruckdeschel, MD , Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, MI
Background: Amphibole asbestos exposure in Libby, Montana constitutes what EPA called the “worst environmental disaster” in U.S. history. More than 270 people have died; hundreds have asbestos-related diseases (ARD); given ARD's lengthy latency period, thousands remain at risk. Multiple generations within families have or are at risk for ARD. Local culture values familial relationships and community identity. Purpose: Using family systems theory, this study explored how family dynamics mediate public health consequences of a “slow-motion technological disaster.” Significance: Previous research addressed rapidly-striking natural disasters' psychosocial consequences and family-level responses to disease (e.g., cancer). Little is known about responses to slow-motion disasters, less about family-level roles/consequences. Methods: Nine focus groups and five interviews (n = 71) were conducted in Libby with people with ARD, family members of people with ARD, and people without ARD in their families. Results: Family members provide informal caregiving for people with ARD (e.g., provide home care, facilitate adherence, monitor symptoms); subsidize health care costs and influence ARD-related health behavior (risk reduction, surveillance, medical care-seeking). However, complex family dynamics interfere with family-level coping and health promotion responses, including: caregiver strain, likely affecting caregivers' psychological/physical health, observing prolonged illness/death while anticipating one's own; conflict; secrecy; family-related guilt/blame; and jeopardized family structure (e.g., conflict, divorce). In addition, community conflict around the disaster sometimes creates tensions between family and community loyalty. Conclusion: Interventions and policy responding to slow-motion disasters should provide healthcare, economic, and psychosocial support to those who most often bear the burden of providing informal care and support.

Learning Objectives:
1. Describe family dynamics in response to a slow-motion technological disaster. 2. Describe implications of these responses for the psychosocial and physical health of family members and the community. 3. Identify how complex family dynamics may interfere with coping with a slow-motion technological disaster.

Keywords: Asbestos, Caregivers

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Any relevant financial relationships? No
Any institutionally-contracted trials related to this submission?

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.