ArticleCurrent environmental health reports2019
Developing Large-Scale Research in Response to an Oil Spill Disaster: a Case Study.
Article in Current environmental health reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Toxicological Effects of Inhaled Crude Oil Vapor.Current environmental health reports · 2024Review
- The association between blood metals and hypertension in the GuLF study.Environmental research · 2021Article
- Broadening the Mandate of the Incident Command System to Address Community Mental and Behavioral Health Effects as Part of the Federal Response to Disasters.Current environmental health reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research conducted in the wake of a disaster can provide information to help mitigate health consequences, support future recovery efforts, and improve resilience. However, a number of barriers have prevented time-sensitive research responses following previous disasters. Furthermore, large-scale disasters present their own special challenges due to the number of people exposed to disaster conditions, the number of groups engaged in disaster response, and the logistical challenges of rapidly planning and implementing a large study. In this case study, we illustrate the challenges in planning and conducting a large-scale post-disaster research study by drawing on our experience in establishing the Gulf Long-term Follow-up (GuLF) Study following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster. We describe considerations in identifying at-risk populations and appropriate comparison groups, garnering support for the study from different stakeholders, obtaining timely scientific and ethics review, measuring and characterizing complex exposures, and addressing evolving community health concerns and unmet medical needs. We also describe the NIH Disaster Research Response (DR2) Program, which provides a suite of resources, including data collection tools, research protocols, institutional review board guidance, and training materials to enable the development and implementation of time-critical studies following disasters and public health emergencies. In describing our experiences related to the GuLF Study and the ongoing efforts through the NIH DR2 Program, we aim to help improve the timeliness, quality, and value of future disaster-related data collection and research studies.
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.