Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25013721›Full record

ArticleHealth systems (Basingstoke, England)2014

Emergency planning and management in health care: priority research topics.

Alan Boyd, Naomi Chambers, Simon French, Duncan Shaw, Russell King, Alison Whitehead

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health systems (Basingstoke, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alan BoydManchester Business School, The University of Manchester , Manchester, U.K.
Naomi ChambersManchester Business School, The University of Manchester , Manchester, U.K.
Simon FrenchUniversity of Warwick , Coventry, U.K.
Duncan ShawUniversity of Warwick , Coventry, U.K.
Russell KingRoyal Free London NHS Foundation Trust , London, U.K.
Alison WhiteheadWrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust , Wigan, U.K.

Funding

Department of Health 09/1005/01Department of Health 10/1012/03
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many major incidents have significant impacts on people's health, placing additional demands on health-care organisations. The main aim of this paper is to suggest a prioritised agenda for organisational and management research on emergency planning and management relevant to U.K. health care, based on a scoping study. A secondary aim is to enhance knowledge and understanding of health-care emergency planning among the wider research community, by highlighting key issues and perspectives on the subject and presenting a conceptual model. The study findings have much in common with those of previous U.S.-focused scoping reviews, and with a recent U.K.-based review, confirming the relative paucity of U.K.-based research. No individual research topic scored highly on all of the key measures identified, with communities and organisations appearing to differ about which topics are the most important. Four broad research priorities are suggested: the affected public; inter- and intra-organisational collaboration; preparing responders and their organisations; and prioritisation and decision making.

Indexed as

business continuityconceptual modelemergency planning and managementhealth careresearch priorities

Identifiers

PMID25013721
PMCPMC4063321

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.