Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Disasters are sudden events that endanger public health. Nurses play a critical role in disaster response, yet many feel only moderately prepared. In Turkey, a high-risk country for earthquakes, improving nursing students' disaster risk perception, psychological preparedness, and self-efficacy is crucial. Understanding the links among these factors is essential for strengthening resilience and effective disaster management. This study aimed to examine the relationships among these three factors. A cross-sectional and correlational design was employed with 1,160 nursing students between March - June 2025. Data were collected via an online questionnaire including the University Students Disaster Risk Perception Scale (USDRPS), the Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threat Scale (PPDTS), and the Disaster Response Self-Efficacy Scale (DRSES). The mean scores were 60.32 ± 11.51 (19-95) for USDRPS, 62.33 ± 8.69 (21-84) for PPDTS, and 57.81 ± 15.30 (19-95) for DRSES. A weak negative correlation emerged between USDRPS and PPDTS (r = -0.114, p r = 0.438, p < 0.01). No significant relationship was observed between USDRPS and DRSES. Gender, disaster-related training, previous experience, and participation in disaster activities enhanced preparedness, whereas risk perception negatively predicted it. Overall, nursing students demonstrated moderate risk perception and self-efficacy, but above-average psychological preparedness. These findings highlight that preparedness enhances self-efficacy, while disaster-related education and experience are crucial for strengthening competencies, supporting the integration of disaster training into nursing curricula.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Psychology Health & Medicine
Bandırma Onyedi Eylül University
Add This Paper to Your Research Feed
Any time a new paper drops it will be there.
Altuntaş et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: