Observational studyBMJ open2019
Change of access to emergency care in a repopulated village after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster: a retrospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outpatient rehabilitation for an older couple in a repopulated village 10 years after the Fukushima nuclear disaster:An embedded case study.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Observational
- Home-visit rehabilitation in a repopulated village after the Fukushima nuclear disaster.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among hospital staff in rural Central Fukushima, Japan: A historical cohort study.International immunopharmacology · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSustaining emergency care access is of great concern. The aim of this study is to evaluate access to emergency care in a repopulated village following the 2011 Fukushima disaster.
designThis research was a retrospective observational study. The primary outcome measure was total emergency medical services (EMS) time. A Bayesian time series analysis was performed to consider local time series trend and seasonality.
settingThe residents in Kawauchi Village, Fukushima, Japan were forced to evacuate after the 2011 Fukushima disaster. As the radiation dose was an acceptable level, the residents began the process of repopulation in April 2012.
participantsThis study included patients transported by EMS from January 2009 to October 2015. Patients transported during the evacuation period (from March 2011 to March 2012) were excluded.
resultsA total of 781 patients were transferred by EMS (281 patients before the disaster, 416 after repopulation and 84 during the evacuation period). A Bayesian time series analysis revealed an increase in total EMS time, from the first request call to arrival at a hospital of 21.85 min (95% credible interval 14.2-29.0, Bayesian one-sided tail-area probability p=0.001). After the disaster, 42.3% of patients were transported to a partner hospital.
conclusionsTotal EMS time increased after repopulation of the area affected because of a massive number of hospital closures. Proactive partnerships would be a possible countermeasure in the affected areas after a major disaster.
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.