A Web-Based Total Worker Health Intervention for Those Fighting Wildland Fires: Mixed Methods Development and Effectiveness Trial

BACKGROUND

Fire seasons are longer, with more and larger wildfires, placing increased demands and risks on those fighting wildland fires. There are multiple agencies involved with fighting wildland fires and unique worksite conditions make meeting these workers' needs a challenge.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to develop and establish the effectiveness of a web-based safety and health program for those fighting wildland fires.

METHODS

This mixed methods project had 3 phases. The initial qualitative phase assessed the needs of 150 diverse firefighters through interviews and focus groups across 11 US sites to establish and prioritize program content. Interview transcripts were read for thematic content with iterative readings used to identify, code, and rank health and safety issues. The second phase used that information to build a comprehensive Total Worker Health program for those fighting wildfires. The program content was based on the qualitative interview data and consisted of 6 core and 8 elective 30-minute, web-based modules primarily done individually on a smartphone or computer. The final, third phase evaluated the program with a quantitative prospective proof-of-concept, usability, and effectiveness trial among wildland firefighter participants. Effectiveness was assessed with paired 2-tailed t tests for pre- and post-Likert agreement scale survey items, adjusted for multiple comparisons. In addition to assessing mean and SD at baseline and postsurvey, observed effect sizes were calculated (Cohen d). Usability and reaction to the program among firefighters who responded to postsurvey were also assessed.

RESULTS

The qualitative themes and subthemes were used to inform the program's content. For the effectiveness trial, 131 firefighters completed the presurvey, and 50 (38.2%) completed the postsurvey. The majority of the participants were White (n=123, 93.9%), male (n=117, 89.3%), with an average age of 41 (SD 12.9) years. Significant increases in knowledge and desired health and safety behaviors were found for both cancer (P<.001) and cardiovascular risk (P=.01), nutrition behaviors (P=.01), hydration or overheating (P=.001), binge drinking (P=.002), and getting medical checkups (P=.001). More than 80% (n=40) of postsurvey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the program was easy to use and would recommend it to others.

CONCLUSIONS

An innovative web-based safety and health promotion program for those fighting wildland fires was feasible, scalable, and usable. It improved the health and safety of those fighting wildland fires.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05753358; https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05753358.

Integrating Subjective and Objective Dimensions of Resilience in Fire-Prone Landscapes

Resilience has become a common goal for science-based natural resource management, particularly in the context of changing climate and disturbance regimes. Integrating varying perspectives and definitions of resilience is a complex and often unrecognized challenge to applying resilience concepts to social-ecological systems (SESs) management. Using wildfire as an example, we develop a framework to expose and separate two important dimensions of resilience: the inherent properties that maintain structure, function, or states of an SES and the human perceptions of desirable or valued components of an SES. In doing so, the framework distinguishes between value-free and human-derived, value-explicit dimensions of resilience. Four archetypal scenarios highlight that ecological resilience and human values do not always align and that recognizing and anticipating potential misalignment is critical for developing effective management goals. Our framework clarifies existing resilience theory, connects literature across disciplines, and facilitates use of the resilience concept in research and land-management applications.

Lung function measures following simulated wildland firefighter exposures

Across the world, biomass smoke is a major source of air pollution and is linked with a variety of adverse health effects. This is particularly true in the western U.S. where wood smoke from wildland forest fires are a significant source of PM2.5. Wildland firefighters are impacted as they experience elevated PM2.5 concentrations over extended periods of time, often occurring during physical exertion. Various epidemiological studies have investigated wood smoke impacts on human health, including occupational field exposures experienced by wildland firefighters. As there are numerous challenges in carrying out these field studies, having the ability to research the potential health impacts to this occupational cohort in a controlled setting would provide important information that could be translated to the field setting. To this end, we have carried out a simulated wildland firefighter exposure study in a wood smoke inhalation facility. Utilizing a randomized crossover trial design, we exposed 10 participants once to clean filtered-air, 250 µg/m3, and 500 µg/m3 wood stove-generated wood smoke PM2.5. Participants exercised on a treadmill at an absolute intensity designed to simulate wildland firefighting for 1.5 hr. In addition to measured PM2.5 smoke concentrations, mean levels of CO2, CO, and % relative humidity were continuously monitored and recorded and were representative of occupational "real-world" exposures. Pulmonary function was measured at three time points: before, immediately after, and 1-hr post-exposure. Although there were some reductions in FVC, FEV1, and FVC:FEV1 measures, results of the spirometry testing did not show significant changes in lung function. The development of this wood smoke inhalational facility provides a platform to further address unique research questions related to wood smoke exposures and associated adverse health effects.

The Science of Firescapes: Achieving Fire-Resilient Communities

Wildland fire management has reached a crossroads. Current perspectives are not capable of answering interdisciplinary adaptation and mitigation challenges posed by increases in wildfire risk to human populations and the need to reintegrate fire as a vital landscape process. Fire science has been, and continues to be, performed in isolated “silos,” including institutions (e.g., agencies versus universities), organizational structures (e.g., federal agency mandates versus local and state procedures for responding to fire), and research foci (e.g., physical science, natural science, and social science). These silos tend to promote research, management, and policy that focus only on targeted aspects of the “wicked” wildfire problem. In this article, we provide guiding principles to bridge diverse fire science efforts to advance an integrated agenda of wildfire research that can help overcome disciplinary silos and provide insight on how to build fire-resilient communities.