ArticlePLoS currents2015
Supporting Rural Australian Communities after Disaster: the Warrumbungle Bushfire Support Coordination Service.
Article in PLoS currents, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimNatural disasters inflict significant trauma upon the individuals and communities in which they occur. In order to gain an understanding of the role of community-based disaster recovery support services in the post-disaster environment, we assessed the acceptability and perceived effectiveness of the Warrumbungle Bushfire Support Coordination Service (BSCS) implemented in response to the January 2013 bushfires in the Warrumbungle Shire, New South Wales, Australia.
methodA mixed-methods approach was taken to explore the perspectives of former BSCS users and key stakeholders involved with the service. A survey was distributed to former services users (in both paper and online modalities) and included closed and open-ended questions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders (face to face or via telephone).
resultsA total of 14 former BSCS users and six key stakeholders participated in the research. Almost half of the former service users had accessed the BSCS for more than six months. Regardless of the duration of their use of the service, most reported that the decision to use the service stemmed from the need for 'help'. The majority of former service users were satisfied with the support provided by the BSCS and would recommend the service to others. Although most indicated that the BSCS informed them about where to get support, just over half were confident that they could access appropriate recovery services without the BSCS. Key themes arising from the former service use surveys were connectedness and support, whilst key themes in the interviews with key stakeholders were connectedness and the operation of the service. Both former service users and key stakeholders reported that the BSCS played an important role in facilitating community connectedness in the post-disaster period. Key stakeholders also identified challenges for the BSCS, including finding an appropriate agency and location to oversee the service and made suggestions about sustainability.
conclusionOn the whole, the BSCS was perceived by former service users and key stakeholders as acceptable and effective. To develop a better understanding of the role of community-based disaster recovery support services, there is a need for more timely, rigorous and representative evaluation of disaster support services like the BSCS. Recommendations are made for the planning and development of future disaster support services. Key words: bushfires, natural disaster, Australia, disaster recovery support service, rural and remote, communities.
Identifiers
26069852PMC4459875W2262433523What 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.