Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25925775›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2015

The evidence base of primary research in public health emergency preparedness: a scoping review and stakeholder consultation.

Yasmin Khan, Ghazal Fazli, Bonnie Henry, Eileen de Villa, Charoula Tsamis, Moira Grant, Brian Schwartz

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Contextualising clinical reasoning within the clinical swallow evaluation: A scoping review and expert consultation.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Yasmin KhanPublic Health Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada. yasmin.khan@oahpp.ca.
Ghazal FazliPublic Health Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada. ghazal.fazli@utoronto.ca.
Bonnie HenryBritish Columbia Centre for Disease Control, 655 W 12th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 4R4, Canada. bonnie.henry@gov.bc.ca.
Eileen de VillaPeel Public Health, 7120 Hurontario Street, P.O Box 667 - RPO Streetsville, Mississauga, ON, L5M 2C2, Canada. eileen.devilla@peelregion.ca.
Charoula TsamisPublic Health Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada. charoula.tsamis@oahpp.ca.
Moira GrantPublic Health Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada. moira.grant@oahpp.ca.
Brian SchwartzPublic Health Ontario, 480 University Avenue, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada. brian.schwartz@oahpp.ca.
Public Health Ontario · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAUniversity of Waterloo · CA

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research 122651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective public health emergency preparedness and response systems are important in mitigating the impact of all-hazards emergencies on population health. The evidence base for public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) is weak, however, and previous reviews have noted a substantial proportion of anecdotal event reports. To investigate the body of research excluding the anecdotal reports and better understand primary and analytical research for PHEP, a scoping review was conducted with two objectives: first, to develop a thematic map focused on primary research; and second, to use this map to inform and guide an understanding of knowledge gaps relevant to research and practice in PHEP.

methodsA scoping review was conducted based on established methodology. Multiple databases of indexed and grey literature were searched based on concepts of public health, emergency, emergency management/preparedness and evaluation/evidence. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied iteratively. Primary research studies that were evidence-based or evaluative in nature were included in the final group of selected studies. Thematic analysis was conducted for this group. Stakeholder consultation was undertaken for the purpose of validating themes and identifying knowledge gaps. To accomplish this, a purposive sample of researchers and practicing professionals in PHEP or closely related fields was asked to complete an online survey and participate in an in-person meeting. Final themes and knowledge gaps were synthesized after stakeholder consultation.

resultsDatabase searching yielded 3015 citations and article selection resulted in a final group of 58 articles. A list of ten themes from this group of articles was disseminated to stakeholders with the survey questions. Survey findings resulted in four cross-cutting themes and twelve stand-alone themes. Several key knowledge gaps were identified in the following themes: attitudes and beliefs; collaboration and system integration; communication; quality improvement and performance standards; and resilience. Resilience emerged as both a gap and a cross-cutting theme. Additional cross-cutting themes included equity, gender considerations, and high risk or at-risk populations.

conclusionsIn this scoping review of the literature enhanced by stakeholder consultation, key themes and knowledge gaps in the PHEP evidence base were identified which can be used to inform future practice-oriented research in PHEP.

Indexed as

ResearchCivil DefenseHumansPublic HealthReferral and Consultation

Identifiers

PMID25925775
PMCPMC4415223
OpenAlexW2091508268

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.