Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31046763›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Improving the science and evidence base of disaster response: a policy research study.

Irene Anne Jillson, Michael Clarke, Claire Allen, Stephen Waller, Tracey Koehlmoos, William Mumford, Jeroen Jansen, Keith McKay, Alexandra Trant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Irene Anne JillsonGeorgetown University Medical Center, Department of Family Medicine, Building D, Room 234, 4000 Reservoir Road NW, Washington DC, 20057, USA.
Michael ClarkeNorthern Ireland Methodology Hub, Centre for Public Health, Royal Hospitals, Queen's University Belfast, Grovesnor Road, Belfast, BT12 6BJ, UK. m.clarke@qub.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2926-7257
Claire AllenEvidence Aid, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Stephen WallerGlobal Health and Surgery, Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
Tracey KoehlmoosDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, 20814, USA.
William Mumford, Gyeongsangnam-do, South Korea.
Jeroen JansenEvidence Aid, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK.
Keith McKaySchool of Nursing and Health Studies, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., 20057, USA.
Alexandra TrantTrinity College Dublin, School of Natural Sciences, Dublin, D02 FD37, Republic of Ireland.

Funding

Maternal Morbidity and Mortality: Risk Factors, Early Detection and Personalized InterventionUL1TR001409 · NCATS · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI GONDRE-LEWIS, MARJORIE C, MELLMAN, THOMAS A · 2015 to 2024
$37.8M
Medical Research Council G0901530NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001409
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to elicit the knowledge, experience, and attitudes of individuals involved in disaster response with regard to evidence-based best practices, Evidence Aid and its institutional partners, Georgetown University and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, carried out a Policy Delphi study in 2015-2016.

methodsPurposive and snowball methods were used to select study participants. The Delphi study comprised two rounds of iterative questions, with the questionnaires completed online. In addition, participants at the Evidence Aid conference in November 2016 discussed the findings in focus groups. Excel was used to analyze the quantitative data and Glaser and Strauss (1967) to analyze the qualitative data.

resultsThirty-six participants responded to the first round of the study, 165 responded to the second round, and 30 participated in the focus group discussions. The salient findings include 1) ensuring that all key stakeholders are engaged in planning for and responding to disasters in a collaborative, coordinated manner-including local community members; 2) using, insofar as possible, evidence-based responses; 3) increasing and strengthening research to ensure that such data are available; and 4) addressing ethical, legal and social issues throughout the planning, immediate response, and post-disaster periods.

conclusionsRecent humanitarian disasters, due to natural and man-made hazards or a combination of the two, reinforce the need for more effective, efficient, humane responses at the local, national and international levels. This study has yielded findings that can be used to strengthen planning and response by taking into account, where possible, evidence based on research that has been carried out with the engagement of community members and with support by key stakeholders. The most effective means of facilitating the development and implementation of consistent, coordinated policies and practices might be for the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction to take the lead in engaging key organizations in the required discussions and collaborations.

Indexed as

Disaster PlanningPublic PolicyAltruismDelphi TechniqueDisastersFocus GroupsHealth Services ResearchHumansDisaster responseEthical, legal, social issuesEvidence-based disaster responseHumanitarian crises

Identifiers

PMID31046763
PMCPMC6498534

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.