Disaster preparedness and disaster risk perception among undergraduate health sciences students: a mixed-methods study

Abstract

Background

Disasters are significant public health concerns. It is essential for students, especially those studying healthcare, to prepare for disasters. This study aimed to determine the disaster preparedness and disaster risk perceptions of undergraduate health field students.

Methods

This was a mixed-methods study. The quantitative dimension was conducted with 452 students studying in the Health Sciences, Medicine, and Dentistry faculties of a university. Data were collected online using an Information Collection Form, the Disaster Preparedness Scale (DPS), and the Disaster Risk Perception Scale (DRPS). The qualitative dimension was completed with 24 students in two focus group interview sessions using a semi-structured interview form.

Results

The mean DPS and DRPS scores of the students were 28.25 ± 5.99 (above average) and 59.54 ± 14.01 (above average), respectively. A significant negative correlation was found between students’ Disaster Risk Perception and Disaster Preparedness levels (r=-0.382, p < 0.05). In the qualitative dimension of the research, four main themes were identified: “Perceptions and experiences related to disasters,” “Disaster preparedness,” “Experiences and opinions regarding services provided during disasters,” and “Opinions and suggestions regarding disaster management.”

Conclusions

As students’ disaster preparedness levels increase, their perceptions of disaster risk tend to decrease. In this sense, the results of this study emphasize the importance of implementing training programs and initiatives to increase the disaster preparedness of students studying in the health field.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-026-27610-y.

Background

Disasters are natural, technological, or human-induced events that cause significant economic and social losses and disrupt normal life and human activities [1]. They constitute a major public health concern, leading to severe adverse health outcomes and loss of life [2, 3]. In recent years, disasters have emerged as a critical global issue, with the 21st century often referred to as the “century of disasters” [4]. According to the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), 399 natural disasters occurred worldwide in 2023, resulting in approximately 86,473 deaths and affecting 93.1 million people [5]. Among these, the most devastating were earthquakes of magnitudes 7.7 and 7.6 that struck Türkiye on February 6, 2023.

Owing to its geographical location, Türkiye is highly vulnerable to various natural disasters and is classified as a high-risk country (score: 5.5) according to the INFORM Risk Management Index Report [6]. These events underscore that disasters generate multidimensional public health crises and highlight the critical importance of community preparedness in disaster management. Disaster preparedness refers to a set of measures undertaken in advance by governments, organizations, communities, and individuals to effectively respond to and cope with disasters [7]. Individuals with higher levels of preparedness are more likely to develop and effectively implement emergency plans prior to disasters, thereby reducing the adverse impacts of such events [8]. Effective disaster preparedness requires a comprehensive understanding of preparedness, response, and recovery strategies, which help mitigate the negative effects of disasters on human health [9].

Risk perception is a key determinant of disaster preparedness. The way individuals perceive disaster risk influences the precautions taken, policy responses, and, ultimately, the extent of damage and consequences at the societal level [10]. Low levels of risk perception may result in inadequate preparedness and coping behaviors, whereas higher levels of risk perception can enhance individuals’ ability to interpret risks, adopt protective measures, and effectively manage disaster-related processes [10, 11].

With the increasing number of disasters today, healthcare professionals are increasingly likely to encounter them in their work. This situation highlights the critical importance of disaster response preparedness among healthcare workers [12, 13]. Ensuring that students, especially those studying healthcare, are prepared for disasters is extremely important for managing future disasters. A review of the literature reveals that studies conducted with quantitative designs involving students in medicine, nursing, and other health-related fields are limited [14, 15]. This study’s inclusion of both quantitative and qualitative designs, employing a mixed-methods approach, is significant because it is a pioneering study. Healthcare professionals and students studying in the healthcare field have important responsibilities in building healthy societies for the future, as they are expected to play an active role in informing people about disaster management and responding to disasters. Therefore, it is believed that determining students’ risk perception and preparedness levels regarding disasters will significantly contribute to improving their roles and responsibilities in disaster management, creating a culture of disaster preparedness and response in the future, and developing plans and programs to that end. This study aimed to determine the disaster preparedness and disaster risk perceptions of undergraduate health field students.

Methods

Type of research

This was a convergent, parallel, mixed-methods study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected simultaneously, and each dataset was analyzed independently. The findings were integrated during the interpretation phase in accordance with the framework proposed by Creswell and Plano Clark [16]. At this stage, the numerical results and participants’ perspectives were compared to determine how they complemented each other. This integration strategy enables a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the data compared with that achieved using a single method.

Research population and sample

The research population consisted of 3,478 Turkish students studying in the Health Sciences, Dentistry, and Medical Faculties of a university in 2023. The research was conducted in two dimensions: quantitative and qualitative. A power analysis was performed to calculate the sample size for the quantitative dimension of this study. Accordingly, the sample size was determined to be at least 176 based on a 95% confidence interval (1-α), 95% test power (1-β), and effect size (d) of 0.5. The effect size was determined based on the “medium” effect size criterion defined by Cohen (1988) [17] and the moderate, statistically significant findings reported in a study conducted with similar student groups [18]. A total of 452 students who agreed to participate in the research formed the sample for the quantitative dimension of this study. The qualitative sample consisted of students who agreed to participate in the study using purposive sampling. The study was conducted with 24 students through two focus group interviews. Data saturation was managed according to the framework proposed by Hennink et al. (2019) in the following manner [19]. Initial codes were identified in the first focus group, and these findings were further elaborated in the second group, reaching information redundancy in the third. As no new categories or themes emerged during the analysis, the data collection process was terminated at this point.

Data collection, data collection tools

The research data were collected from April to September 2023. Quantitative data were collected online using the Information Collection Form, Disaster Preparedness Scale (DPS), and Disaster Risk Perception Scale (DRPS). Convenience sampling was employed as the sampling method, and data were obtained through online questionnaires prepared using Google Forms. The survey link was shared through digital network platforms (e.g., WhatsApp groups), in which the students were included with the assistance of the class representatives. An informed consent form explaining the purpose of the study and the voluntary nature of participation was placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, and only participants who provided consent were allowed to complete the questionnaire.

Information collection form

This form, prepared by the researchers in line with the literature, included questions about descriptive characteristics and disasters [11, 20–22].

Disaster Preparedness Scale (DPS)

Developed by Şentuna and Çakı to assess preparedness in emergency and disaster situations, this scale consists of 13 questions and 4 sub-dimensions [23]. These sub-dimensions are Disaster Physical Protection, Disaster Planning, Disaster Relief, and Disaster Warning and Signals. The lowest possible score on the four-point Likert scale was 13, and the highest was 52. Higher scores indicate better disaster preparedness. The Cronbach’s alpha value of the scale was 0.82, and in this study, it was 0.886.

Disaster Risk Perception Scale (DRPS)

Developed by Mızrak and Aslan to determine the disaster risk perception of university students, this scale consists of 19 items and four subdimensions [24]. These sub-dimensions are Exposure, Anxiety, Effect, and Unmanageability. As the score on the scale increases, the perceived disaster risk increases. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.938, while in this study, it was found to be 0.946.

Qualitative data were collected in two sessions of focus group interviews using a semi-structured format. Focus group interviews are a qualitative method that aims to obtain information about the behaviors, psychological, and socio-cultural characteristics of groups and subgroups, whether conscious, semi-conscious, or unconscious, and to learn the reasons behind their behaviors [25]. Face-to-face focus group interviews were conducted in classrooms at the faculties at a time convenient for the students who agreed to participate in this study. The focus group discussions were audio-recorded with the participants’ permission and lasted approximately 60 min.

Semi-structured interview form

This form, created by the researchers based on the literature, contains students’ knowledge and opinions regarding disasters [11, 23, 26]. The interview guide developed by the researchers was finalized based on the opinions of three field experts (see Supplementary File).

Data evaluation

Quantitative data were evaluated using SPSS 25.0 (Statistical Package of Social Sciences). The normality of the distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Descriptive statistics (number, percentage, mean, standard deviation, minimum-maximum), t-test and Pearson’s correlation analysis were used.

Content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data [27]. The analysis process began with repeated readings of all the interview transcripts to ensure data familiarity. Subsequently, sections of the text relevant to the research questions were identified and coded with labels summarizing their content. Codes with similar meanings were grouped into broader categories and themes. All stages of the analysis were conducted independently by the first and fourth authors without using qualitative data analysis software. At each stage, the two researchers met to discuss the findings, and a consensus was reached through discussion until they reached full agreement.

Ethical issues

Ethical approval was obtained from the Health Sciences Ethics Committee of a university for the research (dated 19.04.2023, Protocol No. 230050). Permission was obtained from the faculty where the research was conducted and from the researchers to use the measurement tools. For the quantitative dimension of the research, an informed consent form was added to the first part of the data collection form for the volunteer students participating, and students who provided their consent began to answer the data collection questions. In the qualitative dimension, the volunteer students were informed about the aims of the research, and verbal consent was obtained before participation. In addition, the students’ names in the quotations were kept confidential and coded. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Validity, reliability/rigor

To ensure the validity and reliability of the research, Lincoln and Guba’s four criteria (transferability, confirmability, credibility, and reliability) were used [28]. To ensure transferability, detailed information about the research methodology, sample, and environment in which the research was conducted were provided. To ensure confirmability, the quotations were presented verbatim. To ensure reliability, the data analysis was performed independently by two researchers, and the findings were compared with each other. To ensure credibility, participants were presented with a summary of the interview at the end of the interview to confirm their responses.

Results

Quantitative findings of the research

The average age of the students participating in the study was 21.51 ± 1.64 (min: 18, max: 27), 64.2% were female, 21% were nursing students, and 32.7% were second-year students. Of the respondents, 49.6% lived at home, 95.4% considered their current area to be at risk of disasters, 69% reported experiencing a disaster, and 82.1% of those who experienced a disaster had experienced an earthquake. Additionally, 14.6% of the students stated that they had suffered a loss due to a disaster, 31.9% had received disaster-related training, 82.5% wanted to receive training, 19.5% had a disaster kit, and 19.5% had a disaster action plan. A total of 91.15% of the students cited social media and 60.84% ​​cited television as sources of information regarding disasters (Table 1).

Table 1.

Descriptive characteristics of students (n = 452)

Features		n	%
Gender	Female	290	64.2
	Male	162	35.8
Age (Mean ± SD) 21.51 ± 1.64 (Min: 18, Max: 27 )	18–22	319	70.6
	23–27	123	29.4
Department	Nursing	95	21.0
	Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation	51	11.3
	Nutrition and Dietetics	39	8.6
	Health Management	31	6.9
	Speech and Language Therapy	14	3.1
	Medicine	180	39.8
	Dentistry	42	9.3
Grade Level	1st year	34	7.5
	2nd year	148	32.7
	3rd year	121	26.8
	4th year	99	21.9
	5th year	34	7.5
	6th year	16	3.5
Current Residence	Home	224	49.6
	Apart/Shared Flat	39	8.6
	Government Dormitory	169	37.4
	Private Dormitory	20	4.4
Perception of Living Area as Disaster-Prone	Yes	431	95.4
	No	21	4.6
Previous Disaster Experience	Yes	312	69.0
	No	140	31.0
Type of Disaster Experienced*(n = 312)	Earthquake	256	82.1
	Fire	35	11.2
	Flood/Landslide	21	6.7
Loss of life due to disaster	Yes	66	14.6
	No	386	85.4
Disaster Training	Yes	144	31.9
	No	308	68.1
Willingness to Receive Disaster Training	Yes	373	82.5
	No	79	17.5
Having an Emergency Kit	Yes	88	19.5
	No	364	80.5
Having a Disaster Action Plan	Yes	88	19.5
	No	364	80.5
Sources of Disaster Information*	Family	186	41.15
	Instructor/ Academic Staff	156	34.51
	Friends	158	34.96
	Social Media	412	91.15
	Television	275	60.84
	Printed Press	175	38.72
	Scientific Publications	179	39.60
	Healthcare Personnel	115	25.44
	Courses	152	33.63

* Since participants gave multiple answers to this question, percentages are based on n

The average total score of the students on the DPS was 28.25 ± 5.99. They scored 10.17 ± 2.44, 6.43 ± 2.03, 7.64 ± 1.99, and 4.00 ± 1.02 on the Disaster Physical Protection, Disaster Planning, Disaster Relief, and Warning Systems and Signals subscales, respectively. The average total score of the students on the DRPS was 59.54 ± 14.01. They scored 20.84 ± 4.71, 12.50 ± 4.66, 16.82 ± 4.32, and 9.37 ± 2.29 on the exposure, anxiety, effect, and unmanageability subscales, respectively (Table 2).

Table 2.

Mean Scores of DPS and DRPS Total Scores and Subdimensions (n = 452)

Scale and Subdimensions	Mean	Min.	Max.	SD
DPS Total	28.25	13	44	5.99
Disaster Physical Protection	10.17	5	16	2.44
Disaster Planning	6.43	3	12	2.03
Disaster Relief	7.64	3	12	1.99
Warning Systems and Signals	4.00	2	8	1.02
DRPS Total	59.54	19	95	14.01
Exposure	20.84	6	30	4.71
Anxiety	12.50	5	25	4.66
Effect	16.82	5	25	4.32
Unmanageability	9.37	3	15	2.29

SD Standard Deviation

Significant differences were found between students’ total DPS scores and gender, disaster experience, disaster training, desire to receive disaster training, and having a disaster action plan (p < 0.05). A significant difference was also found between students’ total DRPS scores and losing a relative in a disaster, receiving disaster training, desire to receive disaster training, and having a disaster action plan (p < 0.05) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Comparison of DPS and DRPS average scores according to participants’ characteristics

Variables	Disaster Preparedness Scale			Disaster Risk Perception Scale
	Mean ± SD	Test value	p-value	Mean ± SD	Test value	p-value
Gender		2.666	0.008*		0.431	0.67
Female	28.82 ± 5.69			3.15 ± 0.73
Male	27.22 ± 6.39			3.11 ± 0.76
Previous disaster experience		4.302	0.001*		-1.186	0.24
Yes	29.04 ± 5.97			3.11 ± 0.74
No	26.47 ± 5.67			3.20 ± 0.73
Loss of life due to disaster		-1.93	0.06		3.029	0.003*
Yes	26.71 ± 7.19			3.39 ± 0.74
No	28.51 ± 5.73			3.09 ± 0.73
Receiving disaster training		7.53	0.001*		-6.064	0.001*
Yes	31.05 ± 5.16			2.84 ± 0.67
No	26.94 ± 5.92			3.27 ± 0.73
Desire to receive disaster training		-2.18	0.031*		4.716	0.001*
Yes	27.99 ± 6.09			3.21 ± 0.71
No	29.48 ± 5.40			2.79 ± 0.78
Having a disaster action plan		8.10	0.001*		-4.062	0.001*
Yes	32.59 ± 5.38			2.85 ± 0.66
No	27.20 ± 5.66			3.20 ± 0.74
Perception of living area as risky		-1.07	0.28		1.859	0.06
Yes	28.18 ± 6.03			3.15 ± 0.74
No	29.62 ± 5.05			2.84 ± 0.56

SD Standard Deviation

*p < 0.05

A significant negative correlation was found between the students’ DPS and DRPS scores (r = -0.382, p < 0.01) (Table 4).

Table 4.

The relationship between participants’ DPS and DRPS average scores

		DRPS
DPS	Pearson r	-0.382
	p	0.001*
	n	452

*The correlation was statistically significant at p < 0.01

Qualitative findings of the research

In the qualitative dimension of the study, the average age of the 24 students participating in the focus group interview was 20.08 ± 1.58 (min: 18, max: 25) years old. Half of the students were female, with 45.8% from the Faculty of Health Sciences, 29.2% from the Faculty of Medicine, and 25% from the Faculty of Dentistry (Table 5).

Table 5.

Demographic characteristics of students participating in the focus group interviews

Features		n	%
Gender	Female	12	50.0
	Male	12	50.0
Department of education	Faculty of Dentistry	7	29.2
	Faculty of Health Sciences	11	45.8
	Faculty of Medicine	6	25.0
Age (years)	Mean ± SD	20.08 ± 1.58
	Range	18–25

Theme 1: perceptions and experiences related to disasters

The number of students who stated that they had experienced one or more of the disasters of earthquakes, fires, floods, or tornadoes was 12. While some students defined disasters with words such as doomsday, helplessness, loss, panic, and chaos, others described it as a natural event. Students reported experiencing emotions such as fear, panic, and anxiety during natural disasters. Some students reported feelings of loss due to the disaster as follows:

• “…. The places where I spent my childhood and youth..My memories are lost…” FHS9

• “It's incredible for the place where a person lives to disappear in an instant ...” FHS 5

• “…..We lived there when we were little.....the buildings in my childhood photos were gone ….” FHS 7

Simultaneously, some students stated that their anxiety continued after being exposed to the disaster. Students’ statements regarding this.

•  “….When I sit on a bench and the ground shakes slightly, I feel my hands and feet tremble. ….” FHS 5

• “…I still wake up at 4am every night…” FHS 8

Theme 2: disaster preparedness

Almost all students considered the city in which they lived to be at risk of disasters. Simultaneously, all students stated that they did not feel prepared for any disaster. Approximately one-third stated that they had individual preparedness, while others stated that individual preparedness was not meaningful, with the following statements:

• "...Preparation should be as a country, in terms of infrastructure and buildings, rather than individually… FHS 1

• "...I don't believe it will protect me, …, I don't see the bag as preparation..." FHS 5

• "...(where I live) the earthquake risk is very high, if it collapses, I have no hope of survival anyway..." FHS 11

Some students also stated that they chose not to prepare individually preparations as a way to avoid stress and anxiety, as follows:

• " Every time I see the earthquake bag, I live with panic, stress, anxiety, and bad scenarios. For that reason, I try not to keep reminder factors with me"FD5

• "...making preparations is like constantly living with the possibility of an earthquake..."

Theme 3: experiences and opinions regarding services provided during disasters

Students expressed concerns regarding deficiencies in supervision, safety, organization, and health service provision in disaster situations. Some students specifically highlighted shortcomings in monitoring measures aimed at disaster prevention, while those who had experienced earthquakes described the organizational problems encountered in the aftermath of disasters as follows:

• "...They built luxury buildings where I lived, said to be resistant to a 9-magnitude earthquake... people died there (in those houses)..." FHS 8

• "...(Earthquake) We lived on the streets for two days. Shelters, water, and search-and-rescue efforts are insufficient..." FD1

• " …the assistance provided after the earthquake was highly insufficient…”FM3

Some students expressed that they experienced security problems after the earthquake, with the following statements:

• "... Some individuals were waiting at the debris to loot..." FHS 6

• "...Aid, markets were looted, security could not be provided..." FD3

At the same time, some students expressed the late establishment and deficiencies of field hospitals after the disaster as follows:

• "...a field hospital was established after 3 days...health personnel are insufficient, there are no materials..." FHS 8

• "...Hospitals were destroyed, and health services could not be provided. For this, a field hospital should have been established immediately..."FD5

In addition, some students highlighted the importance of providing psychological support to disaster victims.

Theme 4: opinions and suggestions regarding disaster management

A frequently received suggestion from students regarding the disaster process was that inspections and organizations should be carried out effectively. One student expressed the importance of learning from previous disaster experiences and taking action as follows:

• “…I wonder if the same mistakes will be made. It is important to avoid the same mistakes and prevent possible errors…” FHS 1

All students stated that they made an effort to obtain information about the disaster through social media, TV news, or online newspaper articles and that they considered these information sources to be reliable. They stated that they required disaster management training. One student expressed the inadequacy of the training provided in the country as follows:

•  "Since elementary school, earthquake drills have been conducted, but no one takes them seriously. The siren sounds - duck under your desk - go outside, that's all there is to it." FHS 8

While some students suggested that training should be mandatory, one student stated that simulation training would be beneficial for people to understand the seriousness of disasters.

Discussion

Türkiye is located in a region with a high risk of natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods, landslides, and avalanches [29]. Although the country has experienced numerous disasters in recent years, two major earthquakes of magnitudes 7.7 and 7.6 occurred on February 6, 2023. According to official figures, these earthquakes resulted in 50,783 deaths, 115,353 injuries, and the destruction of 37,984 buildings. Considering these statistics, these earthquakes are regarded as the most severe and destructive earthquakes that Türkiye has experienced in recent years [30].

In Türkiye, where the risk of disasters is high, individual disaster preparedness is crucial. Disaster preparedness refers to the precautions that individuals should take in advance of disasters and the preparedness of society to minimize damage from disasters [31]. In this study, the students’ disaster preparedness level was above average. When the literature is examined, it is evident that most studies are related to disaster preparedness. Studies conducted with nurses and nursing students have determined that disaster preparedness/readiness is moderate [32–35].

In a study conducted with university students in Bangladesh, it was determined that the students perceived themselves as moderately prepared for disasters, but their actual disaster preparedness level was low [36]. In the focus group discussions, almost all students stated that they considered their city to be at risk of disasters, but they did not feel adequately prepared. Approximately one-third of the respondents indicated that they were individually prepared for a disaster. The reason why students’ disaster preparedness level was above average is thought to be due to the fact that the research data were collected recently, after major earthquakes occurred in Türkiye. However, despite the recent history of disasters, students’ disaster preparedness levels were not high. Therefore, training programs using different strategies are needed to improve disaster preparedness for students, who constitute a significant segment of the society.

The study found that female students had significantly higher disaster preparedness than their male counterparts. While Orbe et al. [37] found higher levels of disaster preparedness among girls, Wang et al. [34] found higher levels among boys than girls. However, a meta-analysis found that gender did not significantly affect perceived disaster preparedness [38]. The difference in disaster preparedness based on gender can be attributed to socio-demographic characteristics, social structure, and cultural factors. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate gender differences in disaster preparedness.

The study revealed that more than half of the students had experienced disasters, primarily earthquakes and fires. Similarly, in the focus group interviews, half of the students stated that they had experienced disasters, including earthquakes, fires, and floods. This indicates that Türkiye is located in a geographically risky area in terms of disasters, owing to recent earthquakes and large forest fires in the province where the university is located. Furthermore, this study found that students who had experienced disasters in the past had higher disaster preparedness levels. A study in South Korea determined that disaster experience was a significant determinant of disaster preparedness [39]. A study in China highlighted that disaster experience among nurses was one of the factors affecting disaster preparedness [33]. Considering these factors, the research findings are consistent with those of the literature. Individuals with past disaster experiences are expected to have higher levels of disaster preparedness. In this context, it is extremely important to conduct studies to ensure the sustainability of individuals’ disaster preparedness levels.

The study revealed that a large majority of students had not received disaster preparedness training but were willing to receive it. Participants who had previously received training had significantly higher levels of disaster preparedness than those who had not. Kılınç İşleyen and Demirkaya [40], in their study with nursing students, indicated a willingness to receive disaster preparedness training. Tercan [41] found that those who received disaster preparedness training had significantly higher levels of disaster preparedness. The literature reports that training programs improve knowledge and skills related to disasters, increasing preparedness and readiness, and having a positive impact [38, 42–44]. In the focus group discussions, students indicated a need for training on disaster preparedness but noted that the training provided was insufficient to meet their needs. Some students suggested that disaster education should be mandatory and that simulation training would be more beneficial in helping them understand disaster scale. These findings suggest that different strategies and technology-supported training programs, such as simulations, can effectively increase disaster preparedness levels.

Risk perception is a crucial component of disaster-risk management. It is also an indicator of an individual’s propensity to take disaster preparedness measures [45]. This study determined that students’ disaster risk perception levels were above average. Taghrir, Borazjani, and Shiraly [46], in their research during the COVID-19 pandemic, found that students’ disaster risk perception was moderate level. A study conducted on individuals in earthquake-affected regions in China also found a moderate level of disaster-risk perception [47]. Although the data for this study were collected immediately after a major disaster in Türkiye, it was expected that students’ disaster risk perceptions would be higher.

The study found a significant negative correlation between students’ perceptions of disaster risk and their level of disaster preparedness. This finding suggests that students with a high level of disaster preparedness tend to perceive disaster risk as being lower. However, some studies have found a positive correlation [48–50]. A study conducted with health sciences faculty students in Türkiye found a moderate, negative, and statistically significant correlation between disaster risk perception and belief in disaster preparedness [51]. The negative correlation between disaster preparedness and risk perception can be explained by perceived control, optimism bias, and risk normalization. Receiving disaster-related education and engaging in preparedness activities enhances individuals’ sense of control over disaster management [52]. This, in turn, increases self-efficacy and self-confidence while reducing anxiety related to the potential negative consequences of disasters. Consequently, this sense of confidence may lead to a lower risk perception. The inverse relationship between disaster preparedness and risk perception may also be explained by the concept of optimism bias [53]. Preparedness activities may lead individuals to perceive themselves as being at lower risk than others and foster a misleading sense of advantage in managing disaster situations. However, it should be considered that an increase in risk perception may trigger avoidance behavior in some students. Indeed, participants’ expressions such as “even seeing an emergency kit creates panic” indicate that emotional factors, such as anxiety, can negatively affect preparedness behaviors. Furthermore, living in a disaster-prone area may lead to the normalization of risk over time [54]. In the interviews, students’ tendency not to take drills seriously can be interpreted as a significant indicator of the normalization process. Taken together, these findings help explain why an increase in disaster preparedness may be associated with a tendency toward lower risk perception.

The study revealed that the most frequently used sources of information about disasters among students were social media, television, and family. In the qualitative dimension of the research, students stated that they obtained information about disasters through social media, TV news, and online newspaper articles. While television and radio were the primary sources of information about disasters in previous years, social media is now more widely used. As of January 2024, there are over 5 billion social media users [55]. Social media allows reaching a large audience in a short period. Social media platforms play a significant role in disaster response. Social media is used quickly and effectively to communicate, respond to, and raise awareness of disasters and other emergencies [56]. Thus, the use of social media is important for raising awareness about disasters, accessing reliable sources of information about disasters, and communicating during emergencies.

The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings provides a comprehensive perspective on students’ disaster preparedness and risk perception. Although the quantitative findings indicated that students’ preparedness and risk perception scores were above average, the qualitative findings revealed that nearly all students reported not feeling adequately prepared, creating a significant discrepancy between the two aspects. This suggests a gap between perceived preparedness and actual readiness. Furthermore, the perception that individual preparedness is insufficient (Theme 2) and the lack of supervision (Theme 3) identified in the qualitative data can be explained by the low rates of emergency kit ownership and the absence of action plans observed in the quantitative findings. Although preparedness levels were higher among those who had received training in the quantitative results, the qualitative findings indicated that existing drills were not taken seriously (Theme 4), highlighting the importance of focusing on more effective and practice-based training methods, such as simulations.

Limitations and strengths

This research is limited to students studying in the health field at a university located in a disaster-prone region in western Türkiye, and the data were self-reported. Furthermore, because the research data were collected recently following the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, one of the biggest disasters in Türkiye in recent times, the level of disaster preparedness and risk perception may have been overestimated by the participants.

The strength of this research lies in its use of a mixed-methods research design that simultaneously conducts quantitative and qualitative analyses. This allowed for an in-depth and multifaceted assessment of students’ disaster preparedness and risk perceptions using both quantitative and qualitative data.

Conclusion

Students’ disaster preparedness and risk perception levels were above average. As disaster preparedness increases, disaster-risk perception tends to decrease. Students indicated that individuals and society are not prepared for disasters or the services provided during disasters.

In light of these findings, it is recommended that disaster-related courses or topics be integrated into the curricula of students studying in the health field in similar institutions, planned training using advanced technologies such as simulations be conducted to increase disaster preparedness, and efforts be made to increase disaster preparedness and risk perception among individuals through the use of social media. Future studies should include students receiving education in high-risk areas. These studies are expected to provide a foundation for developing comprehensive national curricula and educational strategies in the field.

Abbreviations

DPS

Disaster Preparedness Scale

DRPS

Disaster Risk Perception Scale

Authors' contributions

Study design: MSB, MÇ, ZÇ ; Data collection: MSB, MÇ, HDK; Data analysis: MSB, MÇ, HDK ; Drafting of manuscript: MSB, MÇ, HDK, ZÇ; Critical revisions for important intellectual content: MSB, MÇ, HDK, ZÇ; All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grants from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Ethical approval was obtained from the Health Sciences Ethics Committee of Mugla Sıtkı Koçman University for this study (dated 19.04.2023, Protocol No. 230050). Permission was obtained from the faculty where the research was conducted and from the researchers to use the measurement tools. For the quantitative dimension of the research, an informed consent form was added to the first part of the data collection form for the volunteer students participating, and students who provided their consent began to answer the data collection questions. In the qualitative dimension, the volunteer students were informed about the aims of the research, and verbal consent was obtained before they participated in the research. In addition, the students’ names in the quotations were kept confidential and coded accordingly. This study was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.