Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33008341›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Workforce preparedness for disasters: perceptions of clinical and non-clinical staff at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Aram Dobalian, Michelle D Balut, Claudia Der-Martirosian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. 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. Review
  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

3 authors.

Aram DobalianVeterans Emergency Management Evaluation Center, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 16111 Plummer St. MS-152, North Hills, CA, 91343, USA.
Michelle D BalutVeterans Emergency Management Evaluation Center, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 16111 Plummer St. MS-152, North Hills, CA, 91343, USA.
Claudia Der-MartirosianVeterans Emergency Management Evaluation Center, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 16111 Plummer St. MS-152, North Hills, CA, 91343, USA. claudia.der-martirosian@va.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6841-198X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost U.S. studies on workforce preparedness have a narrow scope, focusing primarily on perceptions of clinical staff in a single hospital and for one type of disaster. In contrast, this study compares the perceptions of workplace disaster preparedness among both clinical and non-clinical staff at all U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical facilities nationwide for three types of disasters (natural, epidemic/pandemic, and manmade).

methodsThe VA Preparedness Survey used a stratified simple random, web-based survey (fielded from October through December 2018) of all employees at VA medical facilities. We conducted bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses to compare the sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions of disaster preparedness between clinical and non-clinical VA staff.

resultsThe study population included 4026 VA employees (2488 clinicians and 1538 non-clinicians). Overall, VA staff were less confident in their medical facility's ability to respond to epidemic/pandemics and manmade disasters. Depending on the type of disaster, clinical staff, compared to non-clinical staff, were less likely to be confident in their VA medical facility's ability to respond to natural disasters (OR:0.78, 95% CI:0.67-0.93, p < 0.01), pandemics (OR:0.82, 95% CI:0.70-0.96, p < 0.05), and manmade disasters (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.63-0.86, p < 0.001). On the other hand, clinicians, compared to non-clinicians, were 1.45 to 1.78 more likely to perceive their role in disaster response to be important (natural OR:1.57, 95% CI:1.32-1.87; pandemic OR:1.78, 95% CI:1.51-2.10; manmade: OR:1.45; 95% CI: 1.23-1.71; p's < 0.001), and 1.27 to 1.29 more likely to want additional trainings to prepare for all three types of disasters (natural OR:1.29, 95% CI:1.10-1.51; pandemic OR:1.27, 95% CI:1.08-1.49; manmade OR:1.29; 95% CI:1.09-1.52; p's < 0.01). Clinicians were more likely to be women, younger, and more educated (p's < 0.001) than non-clinicians. Compared to clinicians, non-clinical staff had been employed longer with the VA (p < 0.025) and were more likely to have served in the U.S. Armed Forces (p < 0.001).

conclusionsThese findings suggest both a desire and a need for additional training, particularly for clinicians, and with a focus on epidemics/pandemics and manmade disasters. Training programs should underscore the importance of non-clinical roles when responding to disasters.

Indexed as

Disaster PlanningDisastersVeteransFemaleHumansPerceptionUnited StatesWorkforceCliniciansDisastersEmergency preparednessEpidemicsNatural disastersNon-cliniciansPandemicsUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsWorkforce preparedness

Identifiers

PMID33008341
PMCPMC7531065

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.