While household preparedness (HP) is central to disaster risk reduction, temporal patterns in preparedness practices and risk perceptions have been under-researched, as most studies rely on single-point cross-sectional data. This study examines patterns across repeated interview waves and their relationship with household conditions in Sweden using a repeated cross-sectional qualitative design. It draws on 105 semi-structured interviews conducted across four waves between 2019 and 2025, covering the pre-pandemic period, the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened geopolitical uncertainty and armed conflict, and post-pandemic normalization. The patterns observed across successive interview waves suggest that HP increased gradually before reaching a plateau. Reported risk perceptions broadened across the waves to include pandemics, geopolitical instability, the war in Ukraine, and climate-related threats. Participants frequently described preparedness messaging as more reassuring than action-oriented, alongside selective engagement, information overload, and fatigue. Institutional trust, perceptions of responsibility, and structural conditions (e.g., housing tenure, storage space, and life stage) appeared more influential in shaping preparedness than risk awareness alone. This study provides rare, repeated cross-sectional qualitative evidence on temporal patterns in HP and the Protective Action Decision Model amid repeated crises and risk communication. The findings indicate that increased risk awareness does not necessarily lead to sustained preparedness action, and that the relationship between awareness and behaviour is shaped by institutional trust, perceptions of responsibility, information engagement, and everyday structural constraints. Patterns in the later interview waves indicate a persistent awareness–action gap and a plateau in preparedness despite repeated messaging. The study demonstrates the value of repeated cross-sectional qualitative research for examining temporal patterns in preparedness. The policy implications include making preparedness guidance more actionable and feasible while accounting for household circumstances, institutional expectations, and structural barriers.