ArticlePsychiatry investigation2019
Development of Korean Disaster Mental Health Support Guidelines: Results of a Scoping Review and a Delphi Survey.
Article in Psychiatry investigation, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Appraising Evidence-Based Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) Guidelines-PART I: A Systematic Review on Methodological Quality Using AGREE-HS.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Psychosocial Preparedness for Disasters: A Scoping Review of International Models and Public Health Priorities.Current psychiatry reports · 2026Article
- National Trends and Directions for Suicide Prevention Research in South Korea: A Narrative Review.Psychiatry investigation · 2025Article
- Appraising Evidence-Based Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) Guidelines-PART II: A Content Analysis with Implications for Disaster Risk Reduction.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Hospital-Based Case Management for Suicide High-Risk Group Using Delphi Survey.Psychiatry investigation · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIt is necessary to develop new guidelines to delineate the best ways of providing psychosocial care to ensure mental health following a disaster.
methodsThis study applied the scoping review method as a means of establishing evidence-based guidelines for disaster mental health services. A total of 440 literatures were selected through a scoping review of 20,864 documents. Twenty-three recognized experts were invited to participate in the survey and a two-round online Delphi survey was conducted.
resultsThe concordance rate in the Delphi Round 1 was 95.1%. Six items were excluded and new items were formulated with experts' suggestions. A total of 23 statements were slightly modified to clarify their meaning. In the Delphi Round 2, all items were met with consensus. The three items with the highest consensus among the experts were related to the protection of personal information and privacy. The item with the lowest consensus among experts was related to debriefing. Other items were related to establishing mental health support centers and suicide prevention activities.
conclusion140 items were developed through scoping reviews based on evidence-based methodology. These items were used to describe the disaster mental health support identified in Delphi. The guideline will provide a foundation for effective preparation and response in disaster situations.
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.