ArticleBMJ open2020
Preparedness for peer first response to mining emergencies resulting in injuries: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of a Haemorrhage-Control Task Simulator for Training Nursing Students: A Quasi-Experimental before-after Study.Journal of nursing management · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIdentify factors of preparedness for peer first response to underground mining emergencies with injured victims.
designCross-sectional questionnaire study of Swedish underground mineworkers.
settingSeven out of nine Swedish underground mines.
participantsA total of 741 mineworkers out of 1022 (73%) participated in this study.
interventionsNone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Level of preparedness for emergencies with injuries in underground mines.
resultsThree factors influenced the preparedness of mineworkers for a peer first response: (1) familiarity with rescue procedures during emergencies with injuries; (2) risk perception of emergencies with injuries and (3) experience of using self-protective and first aid equipment. Mineworkers who believed that they knew how to handle emergencies with injuries (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.38) and those who were trained in the use of self-protective and first aid equipment (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.32) considered themselves to be better prepared for a peer first response than those who were unfamiliar with the rescue procedures or who had not used self-protective and first aid equipment. However, mineworkers who rated the risk for emergencies with injuries as high considered themselves to be less prepared than those who rated the risk as low (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.98).
conclusionThis study identified three factors that were important for the peer-support preparedness of underground mineworkers. More research is needed to adapt and contextualise first aid courses to the needs of underground peer responders.
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.