Introduction
Disaster preparedness refers to the proactive measures individuals, communities, and institutions take to anticipate and respond effectively to emergencies. These actions include identifying risks, developing emergency plans, maintaining essential resources, and conducting preparedness drills.Reference Zenker, Bubeck and Thieken 1 Research consistently shows that individuals with higher levels of preparedness exhibit greater psychological resilience and are less vulnerable during crises.Reference Rawcliffe, Dawson and Archibald 2 , Reference Demirbilek and Gökkaya 3 Psychological preparedness is a multidimensional construct that reflects an individual’s ability to anticipate, manage, and adapt to disaster-related challenges. It encompasses cognitive dimensions, such as disaster knowledge, risk perception, and decision-making capacity; emotional dimensions, including emotional regulation, coping ability, and perceived control; and behavioral dimensions, such as preparedness actions, adaptive responses, and effective engagement during emergencies. Psychological preparedness, which includes strengthening coping mechanisms and fostering a sense of control, plays a key role in disaster readiness. Evidence suggests that individuals with higher psychological readiness are less likely to experience depression and anxiety following disasters.Reference Rawcliffe, Dawson and Archibald 2 , Reference Palupi and Himawan 4 Furthermore, disaster education programs enhance resilience by equipping individuals with the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for effective disaster response.Reference Palupi and Himawan 4 -Reference Torpuş, Usta and Çınar 6 These programs empower individuals and contribute to community-based resilience by promoting social solidarity and mutual responsibility.Reference Pike, Dohnt, Tully, Bartik, Welton-Mitchell and Murray 7 , Reference Batı and Çelikkalp 8 Integrating disaster education into higher education is a strategic approach to enhancing individual and community resilience.Reference Jumiyati, Omolu and Mappewali 9 , Reference Kang, Lee and Seo 10
Numerous factors influence psychological preparedness. Demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, education, and socioeconomic status, significantly impact an individual’s sense of readiness. Younger individuals and those with higher education generally report greater preparedness.Reference Öztekin and Örki 11 , Reference Pastrana 12 Prior disaster experience and participation in emergency training also enhance readiness by expanding knowledge and coping skills.Reference James, Welton-Mitchell and Noel 13 , Reference Every, McLennan and Reynolds 14 Mental health status is another key factor; conditions like depression, anxiety, and chronic stress may impair preparedness, whereas targeted interventions can improve it.Reference Öztekin and Örki 11 , Reference James, Welton-Mitchell and Noel 13 High self-efficacy and active coping strategies further support preparedness for disaster-related stress.Reference Every, McLennan and Reynolds 14 , Reference Gandhi, Sahu and Govindan 15 Social and community-level factors, such as social support systems and the inclusion of mental health professionals in planning, are also crucial in enhancing psychological readiness.Reference Paton, Yokomatsu and Hochrainer-Stigler 16
Interventions to strengthen psychological preparedness can be implemented at individual and community levels. Psychological first aid (PFA) training improves emotional and behavioral coping during and after disasters, particularly when integrated into broader community disaster plans.Reference Said, Molassiotis and Chiang 17 Evidence-based treatments, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, promote psychological resilience.Reference Öztekin and Örki 11 , Reference James, Welton-Mitchell and Noel 13 At the community level, programs that combine disaster training with mental health support foster group-based coping, social cohesion, and shared responsibility.Reference James, Welton-Mitchell and Noel 13 , Reference Paton, Yokomatsu and Hochrainer-Stigler 16 School-based initiatives also help children and adolescents respond more resiliently in crises.Reference Pastrana 12 , Reference Jamali, Alfianto and Zunaidi 18
Health care professionals play a central role in disaster preparedness and response. Their duties include delivering emergency care, psychological first aid, participating in planning processes, and conducting public education on disaster readiness.Reference Batı and Çelikkalp 8 , Reference Mtiraoui, Mahjoubi, Achour, Ghardallou and Nakhli 19 Integrating disaster nursing education into health science curricula enhances practitioners’ knowledge, competencies, and confidence in managing emergencies.Reference Yildiz and Yildirim 5 University students, particularly those studying health sciences, represent a key population for disaster education. Research shows that students’ disaster awareness and psychological preparedness vary based on prior training, simulation participation, and exposure to academic content.Reference Kolaç, Eroğlu and Nirgiz 20 , Reference Serondo, Martizano, Jurabia and Bacatan 21 Psychologically prepared students experience less stress in crises and show greater initiative in disaster response.Reference Rawcliffe, Dawson and Archibald 2 , Reference Nova, Zuanny, Karjuniwati and Naila 22 Thus, integrating disaster-related content into higher education builds individual resilience and helps develop a healthy workforce that is flexible and responsive to emergencies.Reference Jumiyati, Omolu and Mappewali 9
Psychological preparedness is crucial in disaster management, especially in countries like Turkey, which frequently face natural hazards such as earthquakes, floods, and landslides. The 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes underscored the devastating impact of such events. This study aims to assess the psychological preparedness of students in the Faculty of Health Sciences regarding potential disaster threats. By analyzing students’ psychological preparedness, the study explores the influence of demographic and disaster-related factors on preparedness levels. The findings will inform the development of targeted training programs to enhance disaster response competencies and guide broader strategies for increasing community resilience. Ultimately, the study seeks to contribute to enhancing individual preparedness and informing disaster education strategies for future health care professionals. It was hypothesized that psychological preparedness levels would differ according to students’ demographic characteristics, academic department, and previous disaster experience. Furthermore, students enrolled in disaster-related programs and those with prior disaster experience were expected to demonstrate higher levels of psychological preparedness than their peers.
Method
Study design and data collection tools
This study was conducted using a quantitative research design. Data were collected using 2 instruments developed based on the existing literature: the Personal Information Form and the Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale. The Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale is based on the validity and reliability study conducted by Türkdoğan Görgün et al.Reference Türkdoğan Görgün, Koçak Şen and McLennan 23 It is structured as a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). The Personal Information Form was designed to gather socio-demographic data from participants, including gender, age, and educational level. The study population consisted of 667 students enrolled in the Faculty of Health Sciences at Erzurum Technical University, and the final sample comprised 514 students who voluntarily agreed to participate. A convenience sampling strategy was employed, whereby students who were available during the data collection period were invited to participate in the study. The sample size was calculated using the standard sample size formula, with a 95% confidence interval and a ±5% margin of error.
The Personal Information Form contained 6 demographic questions, collecting information on gender, age, educational status, and previous disaster experience. The Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale included 21 items. It comprised 4 subdimensions: Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment, Management of Emotional and Psychological Responses, Management of the Social Environment, and Psychological Readiness for Disasters. The internal consistency reliability of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The reliability values were high across all subdimensions: 0.913 for Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment, 0.842 for Management of Emotional and Psychological Responses, 0.766 for Management of the Social Environment, and 0.912 for Psychological Readiness for Disasters. Data collection was carried out through face-to-face surveys with students at the Faculty of Health Sciences, and each survey session lasted approximately 20 minutes.
Ethics
Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Erzurum Technical University Ethics Committee (Approval No: 02/09, Date: 23.01.2025). The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before they participated in the study.
Statistical analysis
The data were analyzed using SPSS for Windows 25.0 and Data Beeg version 1.0. Descriptive statistical methods, including mean, standard deviation, percentage, and frequency, were employed in the analysis. In addition, the reliability of the scales was assessed using reliability analysis. The assumption of normal distribution was examined using the Q–Q Plot method, and the distributional characteristics of the data were evaluated using skewness and kurtosis values. For inferential analysis, independent samples t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) were conducted to identify statistically significant differences across groups.
Results
A total of 514 students participated in the study, of whom 76.7% were female, and 23.3% were male. Among the participants, 1.8% were aged 17 or younger, 32.7% were between 18 and 20 years old, 55.8% were between 21 and 23, and 9.7% were aged between 24 and 26. Regarding their departments, 14.6% were students in the Department of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, 31.5% in the Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, 10.1% in the Department of Emergency Aid and Disaster Management, and 43.8% were nursing students. Regarding academic year, 30.7% were first-year students, 27% were second-year, 22.8% were third-year, and 19.5% were in their fourth year of study. While 44.4% of the participants reported having experienced a disaster, 55.6% had not. The skewness and kurtosis values of all study variables were within acceptable limits, indicating that the data were approximately normally distributed.
Table 1 indicates that all subdimensions and the total scale exhibit acceptable skewness (−0.653 to −0.377) and kurtosis (0.209 to 1.682) values, which fall within commonly accepted thresholds (±2). This suggests that the data are approximately normally distributed. The slight negative skewness across variables implies a tendency toward higher preparedness scores, while positive kurtosis values indicate a modest concentration around the mean. Overall, these results justify the use of parametric statistical analyses in the study.
Results of the normality analysis for the scale used in the study
Table 1. Long description
The table consists of four columns: Variables, Skewness, Kurtosis, and Distribution Status.
* Row 1: External Situational Environment Awareness and Management. Skewness is minus 0.377. Kurtosis is 0.209. Distribution Status is Normal.
* Row 2: Management of the Individual’s Emotional and Psychological Response. Skewness is minus 0.566. Kurtosis is 1.682. Distribution Status is Normal.
* Row 3: Management of the Individual’s Social Environment. Skewness is minus 0.653. Kurtosis is 0.949. Distribution Status is Normal.
* Row 4: Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Scale. Skewness is minus 0.431. Kurtosis is 1.203. Distribution Status is Normal.
When examining the descriptive statistics of the scale used in the study, as presented in Table 2, the following mean scores and standard deviations were observed: the mean score for Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment was 30.86 (SD = 6.32); the mean for Management of Emotional and Psychological Reactions was 32.52 (SD = 4.90); the mean for Management of Social Environment was 11.02 (SD = 1.94); and the overall mean score for the Psychological Readiness for Disasters Scale was 74.39 (SD = 10.81).
Descriptive statistics of the scale used in the study
Table 2. Long description
The table consists of five columns: Variables, Minimum, Maximum, Mean, and Standard Deviation. It contains four rows of data:
* External Situational Environment Awareness and Management: Minimum 9.00, Maximum 45.00, Mean 30.86, Standard Deviation 6.32.
* Management of the Individual’s Emotional and Psychological Response: Minimum 9.00, Maximum 45.00, Mean 32.52, Standard Deviation 4.90.
* Management of the Individual’s Social Environment: Minimum 3.00, Maximum 15.00, Mean 11.02, Standard Deviation 1.94.
* Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Scale: Minimum 21.00, Maximum 105.00, Mean 74.39, Standard Deviation 10.81.
According to the findings presented in Table 3, male participants scored significantly higher than female participants in the subdimensions of Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment and in the overall Psychological Readiness for Disasters Scale. Furthermore, participants aged 17 and below reported higher scores in the Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment subdimension than other age groups (P <.05). When comparisons were made based on students’ departments, it was found that students from the Department of Emergency Aid and Disaster Management had higher scores in all subdimensions, Knowledge and Management of the External Situational Environment, Management of Emotional and Psychological Reactions, Management of Social Environment, as well as in the overall Psychological Readiness for Disasters Scale, compared to students from other departments.
Comparison of psychological readiness for disasters and subdimension scores according to participants’ demographic characteristics
Table 3. Long description
The table presents Mean and S D values for three subdimensions and the total Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Scale across several demographic categories.
1. Gender: Males scored significantly higher than females in External Situational Environment Awareness and Management (34.00 vs 29.90, p < .001) and the total scale (77.81 vs 73.36, p < .001).
2. Age: Significant differences were found in External Situational Environment Awareness, where those aged 17 and below scored highest (36.78). Bonferroni tests show group 1 is significantly higher than groups 2, 3, and 4.
3. Department: Emergency and Disaster Management students scored significantly higher across all subdimensions and the total scale (80.40) compared to Physiotherapy, Nutrition, and Nursing.
4. Grade: No significant differences were found across year levels (p > .05).
5. Disaster Experience: Those who had experienced a disaster scored significantly higher in External Situational Awareness (31.53 vs 30.33, p = .032) and the total scale (75.72 vs 73.34, p = .013).
6. Loss due to Disaster: Participants who experienced loss scored significantly higher in External Situational Awareness (33.02), Emotional Response Management (33.96), and the total scale (78.25) compared to those who did not.
Note. X̅ = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; *P <.05; **Independent samples t-test; ***One-way ANOVA; Bonferroni test used for post hoc comparisons where applicable. Effect sizes are reported as partial eta squared (ηp2).
The findings suggest that psychological readiness for disasters varies significantly across genders, age groups, and academic departments, with male participants and younger individuals (aged 17 and below) exhibiting higher readiness levels. Furthermore, the Department of Emergency and Disaster Management students demonstrated superior scores across all subdimensions, underscoring the potential influence of academic training on disaster preparedness. Prior exposure to disasters and personal loss due to disasters was also associated with significantly higher levels of psychological preparedness.
Discussion
This study examines the differences in disaster preparedness levels among students of the Faculty of Health Sciences. The findings indicate that although the number of female participants was higher, male students scored significantly higher on the “external situational awareness and management” and “psychological preparedness for disasters” scales. These findings may be associated with multiple factors, including sociocultural influences, differences in disaster-related experiences, disaster education, risk perception, and self-efficacy. Previous studies have suggested that gender-role expectations may influence individuals’ preparedness perceptions and responses to disasters.Reference Goodman, Cottrell, Paton and Tedim 24 , Reference Muñoz-Nieves, Greaves, Huber, Brabete, Wolfson and Poole 25 However, the present study was not designed to examine the underlying causes of gender differences, and therefore these findings should be interpreted with caution. Alternative explanations, such as variations in educational exposure, prior disaster experience, and individual coping resources, may also have contributed to the observed differences. The present findings are consistent with previous research suggesting that gender may be associated with differences in disaster preparedness and coping responses.Reference Muñoz-Nieves, Greaves, Huber, Brabete, Wolfson and Poole 25 , Reference Alburo-Cañete 26 However, these associations are likely influenced by a complex interplay of social, educational, and individual factors.Reference Gokmenoglu, Dasci Sonmez and Yavuz 27
An age-based analysis of the participants revealed that individuals aged 17 and below scored significantly higher on the “external situational awareness and management” scale than those in the 18-20, 21-23, and 24-26 age groups. This finding may be attributed to the increasing integration of disaster education into formal curricula, particularly at the primary and secondary levels. In recent years, the Turkish Ministry of National Education (MoNE) has launched various school-based initiatives to enhance disaster preparedness and resilience among students and educators. The presence of participants aged 17 years and younger may be explained by variations in school entry age and the timing of transition to higher education in Türkiye. However, the relatively small number of participants in this age group warrants cautious interpretation of age-related findings. Notably, the School-Based Disaster Education Project provides structured training modules for teachers and students, emphasizing disaster risk reduction and the development of practical response skills.Reference Gokmenoglu, Dasci Sonmez and Yavuz 27 Evaluated through the Context, Input, Process, Product (CIPP) model, the project has demonstrated measurable improvements in participants’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. In addition to these institutional efforts, the widespread availability of digital technologies among adolescents may further contribute to the higher levels of situational awareness observed in this younger cohort.Reference Gokmenoglu, Dasci Sonmez and Yavuz 27 –Reference Ediz and Yanik 29 On the other hand, the lack of statistically significant differences in other scales may stem from this age group’s relatively immature development of psychological and emotional regulation abilities. Therefore, the absence of significant variation in the subdimensions related to the socio-emotional aspects of psychological preparedness may reflect these developmental limitations. As noted in the relevant literature, advanced abilities like emotional regulation, empathic responsiveness, and maintaining composure during crises tend to emerge during the transition from adolescence to young adulthood and are strengthened through accumulated life experience.Reference Compas, Jaser and Bettis 30
Comparative analysis of participants’ academic departments revealed that students in the Emergency Aid and Disaster Management program scored significantly higher in the subdimensions of “external situational awareness and management,” “emotional and psychological response management,” “social environment management,” and overall “psychological preparedness for disasters” than their peers in Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation, Nutrition and Dietetics, and Nursing. This distinction may be attributed to the inherently practice-oriented and crisis-focused structure of the Emergency Aid and Disaster Management curriculum, which incorporates applied training, simulation exercises, and strategic collaborations with key institutions such as the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority (AFAD), the National Medical Rescue Team (UMKE), and the Turkish Red Crescent. A likely explanation for this difference is the strong professional identity and heightened disaster-related awareness cultivated among Emergency Aid and Disaster Management students. Their routine exposure to realistic disaster scenarios and field-based competencies likely enhances their self-efficacy and preparedness levels.Reference Demirbilek and Gökkaya 3 These findings align with existing literature emphasizing the importance of disaster-specific education across health care disciplines. Research in the nursing field has demonstrated that structured educational interventions, such as an 8-module disaster preparedness program, significantly improve nursing students’ perceptions of general preparedness, disaster response self-efficacy, and psychological resilience.Reference Yildiz and Yildirim 5 Similarly, Koçak and SerinReference Koçak and Serin 31 found that prior experience with drills and familiarity with institutional disaster plans contribute positively to nurses’ preparedness perceptions. Their study underlined the need to strengthen disaster nursing education within in-service training programs. These insights underscore the value of specialized, practice-based disaster education in enhancing readiness across health care professions.
Analyses based on whether participants had previously experienced a disaster revealed that individuals with such experience scored significantly higher on both the “external situational awareness and management” and “psychological preparedness for disasters” scales compared to those without disaster experience (P <.05). This finding suggests that direct exposure to disaster events facilitates learning and enhances behavioral awareness. Experiencing a disaster may increase awareness of environmental threats and encourage precautionary behaviors. These experiences may contribute to greater preparedness and adaptive coping capacities, as suggested in previous studies.Reference Lee, Kim, Noh, Chon, Kim and Chae 32 , Reference Choi, Cho and Lee 33 Additionally, individuals with higher levels of disaster experience tend to engage more actively with civil society organizations, media, and public institutions, improving their environmental knowledge, awareness, and psychological preparedness. Consistent with this, Rijumol et al.Reference Rijumol, Thangarajathi and Ananthasayanam 34 found that experiencing disasters positively impacts learning processes. Participants who had lost someone close to them due to a disaster were found to have significantly higher scores on the “external situational awareness and management,” “emotional and psychological response management,” and overall “psychological preparedness for disasters” scales compared to those who had not experienced such a loss. This outcome may be interpreted as an indication that the grieving process, triggered by the loss of a loved one, enhances emotional awareness and psychological resilience. According to Kübler-Ross,Reference Kübler-Ross 35 the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance, can lead to fluctuations in psychological responses; however, individuals with high emotional intelligence, self-awareness, and empathy are generally more capable of navigating this process more healthily.
Considering these findings, several educational policy recommendations have been proposed within the context of health sciences training:
-
• Other health-related departments could integrate field-specific modules like those in Emergency Aid and Disaster Management. At the same time, basic disaster knowledge and psychological first aid training should be integrated into the curriculum for all students in the health sciences.
-
• Scenario-based simulations should be utilized to expand hands-on disaster drill opportunities, thereby promoting active participation from students across all departments.
-
• Gender-sensitive awareness training programs should be developed to strengthen the confidence and engagement of women in disaster settings.
-
• Psychological resilience-building interventions should be designed for individuals who have experienced disasters and suffered personal losses.
-
• Technology-assisted disaster education should be introduced into the school curriculum early to enhance disaster preparedness among children and adolescents.
The findings of this study have important implications for health sciences curricula and disaster preparedness policies. Integrating disaster preparedness, psychological first aid, and resilience-building components into health sciences education may enhance students’ readiness for future emergencies. Furthermore, supporting simulation-based training, interdisciplinary disaster education, and targeted psychosocial interventions may contribute to the development of a more resilient health care workforce and strengthen community preparedness for disasters.
Limitations
This study has several limitations that must be acknowledged. The study was conducted at a single university and included students from only one faculty, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Participants aged 17 and below represented a relatively small proportion of the sample, which may limit the generalizability and stability of age-related comparisons. Furthermore, the predominance of female participants may have affected the representativeness of the sample and the interpretation of gender-related differences. Additionally, self-report instruments may introduce social desirability bias, particularly in culturally sensitive areas such as self-perceived readiness and emotional responses. Finally, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inferences. Future research should utilize longitudinal designs to assess changes in preparedness over time and consider mixed methods approaches to explore the psychosocial effects of disaster experience in greater depth. Including qualitative interviews or focus groups could yield rich insights into emotional processing, resilience mechanisms, and personal meaning-making following disaster exposure.
Data availability statement
The data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank all participants for their willingness and patience throughout the study.
Author contribution
Elif Alar Erkal: Conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, manuscript drafting, manuscript revision.
Hatice Cecen-Celik: Statistical analysis, interpretation of findings, critical revision of the manuscript.
Nurgul Karakurt: Study design, data collection, manuscript revision.
All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding statement
Open access funding provided by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK).
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest between themselves and affiliated institutions.
Ethical approval
This research received ethical clearance from the Ethical Review Committee of Erzurum Technical University. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before their involvement.
