ArticlePublic health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974)2014
State-level legal preparedness for nuclear and radiological emergencies in the U.S.: a network analysis of state laws and regulations.
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 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing in Legal Epidemiology Studies: Opportunities and Challenges.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2026Review
- Trends in US State Public Health Emergency Laws, 2021-2022.American journal of public health · 2023Article
- Preparedness and emergency response research centers: early returns on investment in evidence-based public health systems research.Public health reports (Washington, D.C. : 1974) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study explored if and to what extent the laws of U.S. states mirrored the U.S. federal laws for responding to nuclear-radiological emergencies (NREs).
methodsEmergency laws from a 12-state sample and the federal government were retrieved and translated into numeric codes representing acting agents, their partner agents, and the purposes of activity in terms of preparedness, response, and recovery. We used network analysis to explore the relationships among agents in terms of legally directed NRE activities.
resultsStates' legal networks for NREs appear as not highly inclusive, involving an average of 28% of agents among those specified in the federal laws. Certain agents are highly central in NRE networks, so that their capacity and effectiveness might strongly influence an NRE response.
conclusionsState-level lawmakers and planners might consider whether or not greater inclusion of agents, modeled on the federal government laws, would enhance their NRE laws and if more agents should be engaged in planning and policy-making for NRE incidents. Further research should explore if and to what extent legislated NRE directives impose constraints on practical response activities including emergency planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.