Objective: To identify activities performed by public health nurses (PHNs) in normal times that have promoted residents’ mutual assistance during disasters across different municipalities in Japan.

Method: We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional self-report questionnaire survey of PHNs in 1,463 municipalities. The questionnaires assessed whether activities were conducted to promote residents’ mutual assistance during disasters and if so, what details could be provided. We provided a qualitative analysis of the objects and method of such activities.

Results: We obtained 535 responses (a valid response rate of 36.6%). We found that 160 municipalities (29.9%) had conducted the aforementioned activities, and nine categories were extracted from 199 codes. The categories were as follows: “Hold meetings and drills for mutual assistance in the event of a disaster for resident groups;” “Develop a disaster prevention system that includes those requiring special care together with district organizations, etc. ;” “Link health services with activities to promote residents’ mutual assistance during disaster;” “Provide residents with education regarding mutual assistance in times of disaster in various ways and contents;” and “Discuss and take measures for disaster prevention and mutual assistance within an organization to improve comprehensive care in the community.”

Discussion: The characteristics of these activity were: group support that produces mutual assistance, including for those requiring special care; a population approach to prepare mutual assistance in the disaster by joining with daily health activities; system construction that makes mutual assistance a constant in normal times as well as in the case of disaster.

Objective: This study clarified how nurses at a community general support center provide care, in accordance with the progression of symptoms, to elderly people with dementia who live alone.

Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 nurses with more than five years of experience in a community general support center, and data were analyzed qualitatively and descriptively.

Results: We extracted six categories, 36 subcategories, and 109 codes. The categories were “assessing the current situation and predicting future progress,” “trying to be someone to be remembered in times of trouble,” “creating an environment where people can live safely in the community,” “connecting people to the support they need to continue living alone,” “providing a bridge to the next support team,” and “supporting people to live in their own way.”

Discussion: The nurses at the community general support center made efforts to build a trusting relationship with the elderly with dementia from an early stage by taking advantage of the fact that they could relate to them even before they were diagnosed with dementia, and provided timely and appropriate support according to their stage of progress from mutual aid to mutual assistance. They also placed importance on respecting the wishes of the elderly people they came to know through these relationships and the supporting of their unique way of life. Although the timing of interventions varies, our results highlighted the importance of setting the direction of support so that the uniqueness of each person’s personality remains unaffected, no matter when the relationship begins.

Purpose: This study aimed to clarify the definition, and identify the constructs, of “community resilience” related to disasters in the medical and health fields.

Method: PubMed and the Web version of the Central Journal of Medicine were searched, and 33 references were randomly selected from a total of 88. Using Rogers’ concept analysis method, a qualitative analysis was conducted in terms of attributes, antecedents, and consequences of community resilience.

Result: Three categories identified under “attributes” were a community’s【ability to restabilize after a disaster】【community members’ collective actions in response to the disaster】, and【the process of stabilizing after the disaster】. Under antecedent requirements, five categories were extracted:【community stability】【residents with disaster preparedness】【existence of people’s connections】【disaster-related information sharing among residents】, and【competent leaders】. Under consequences, three categories were identified:【residents’ health】【community development】, and【improving people’s connections】.

Discussion: Community resilience therefore indicates a community’s ability to restabilize after a disaster; it also refers to the collective actions of the community members and to the process of returning to the former stable state. Further, community resilience includes post-disaster stabilization of the community using these capabilities. Therefore, when using this concept, the three attributes of capabilities, behaviors, and processes must be distinguished.