ArticleElectronic physician2017
Exploring the perception of aid organizations' staff about factors affecting management of mass casualty traffic incidents in Iran: a grounded theory study.
Article in Electronic physician, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fragile cooperation in high-casualty traffic incidents: a grounded theory study of inter-organizational emergency response in Iran.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Emergency medical services preparedness in mass casualty incidents: A qualitative study.Health science reports · 2023Article
- Exploring Barriers and Facilitators of Inter-Organizational Management in Response to Mass Casualty Traffic Incidents: A Qualitative Study.Bulletin of emergency and trauma · 2021Article
- Meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence in road traffic injury prevention: a scoping review of qualitative studies (2000 to 2019).Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2020Article
- A prospective study of psychomotor performance of driving among two kinds of shift work in Iran.Electronic physician · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraffic incidents are of main health issues all around the world and cause countless deaths, heavy casualties, and considerable tangible and intangible damage. In this regard, mass casualty traffic incidents are worthy of special attention as, in addition to all losses and damage, they create challenges in the way of providing health services to the victims.
aimThe present study is an attempt to explore the challenges and facilitators in management of mass casualty traffic incidents in Iran.
methodsThis qualitative grounded theory study was carried out with participation of 14 purposively selected experienced managers, paramedics and staff of aid organizations in different provinces of Iran in 2016. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to develop the theory. The transcribed interviews were analyzed through open, axial and selective coding.
resultsDespite the recent and relatively good improvements in facilities and management procedure of mass casualty traffic incidents in Iran, several problems such as lack of coordination, lack of centralized and integrated command system, large number of organizations participating in operations, duplicate attempts and parallel operations carried out by different organizations, intervention of lay people, and cultural factors halt provision of effective health services to the victims.
conclusionIt is necessary to improve the theoretical and practical knowledge of the relief personnel and paramedics, provide public with education about first aid and improve driving culture, prohibit laypeople from intervening in aid operations, and increase quality and quantity of aid facilities.
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.