Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25355973›Full record

ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)2014

Institutional facilitators and barriers to local public health preparedness planning for vulnerable and at-risk populations.

Christine A Bevc, Matthew C Simon, Tanya A Montoya, Jennifer A Horney

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Christine A BevcUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, North Carolina Institute for Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.
Matthew C SimonUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, North Carolina Institute for Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.
Tanya A MontoyaUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, North Carolina Institute for Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.
Jennifer A HorneyUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Gillings School of Global Public Health, North Carolina Institute for Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC.

Funding

OPHPR CDC HHS 1P01TP000296
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNumerous institutional facilitators and barriers to preparedness planning exist at the local level for vulnerable and at-risk populations. Findings of this evaluation study contribute to ongoing practice-based efforts to improve response services and address public health preparedness planning and training as they relate to vulnerable and at-risk populations.

methodsFrom January 2012 through June 2013, we conducted a multilevel, mixed-methods evaluation study of the North Carolina Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Center's Vulnerable & At-Risk Populations Resource Guide, an online tool to aid local health departments' (LHDs') preparedness planning efforts. We examined planning practices across multiple local, regional, and state jurisdictions utilizing user data, follow-up surveys, and secondary data. To identify potential incongruities in planning, we compared respondents' reported populations of interest with corresponding census data to determine whether or not there were differences in planning priorities.

resultsWe used data collected from evaluation surveys to identify key institutional facilitators and barriers associated with planning for at-risk populations, including challenges to conducting assessments and lack of resources. Results identified both barriers within institutional culture and disconnects between planning priorities and evidence-based identification of vulnerable and at-risk populations, including variation in the planning process, partnerships, and perceptions.

conclusionsOur results highlight the important role of LHDs in preparedness planning and the potential implications associated with organizational and bureaucratic impediments to planning implementation. A more in-depth understanding of the relationships among public institutions and the levels of preparedness that contribute to the conditions and processes that generate vulnerability is needed.

Indexed as

Public Health PracticeVulnerable PopulationsCivil DefenseData CollectionDisaster PlanningEvidence-Based PracticeHealth PrioritiesHumansInstitutional Management TeamsInternetLocal GovernmentNorth CarolinaOrganizational CulturePopulation SurveillanceSocial Support

Identifiers

PMID25355973
PMCPMC4187305

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.