ArticleIntegrated environmental assessment and management2021
Facilitating the Decision-Making Process After a Nuclear Accident: Case Studies in the Netherlands and Slovakia.
Article in Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Rapid Literature Review of Multi-Criteria Decision Support Methods in the Context of One Health for All-Hazards Threat Prioritization.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- Assessing the Application of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models in Acute Chemical Incidents.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nuclear accidents do not occur frequently, but their biological, psychosocial, and/or economic consequences may be severe. Hence, a thorough preparation for nuclear emergencies is needed to provide appropriate actions. During the transition phase of an accident, it is vital to include stakeholders in the decision-making process in order to gain support for the recovery strategy to be implemented as well as to share different perspectives, knowledge, and views on the decision problem. Because nuclear accidents are complex, involving many relevant factors that range from technical aspects such as health effects and costs to nontechnical issues such as social acceptance, a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) may facilitate the decision-making process. The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of MCDA in the transition phase of a nuclear accident. To this end, an MCDA tool, which uses the weighted sum of a set of normalized criteria, was explored in exercises carried out in panel meetings with a selected set of (largely) governmental stakeholders. The panel meetings were performed in the Netherlands and the Slovak Republic. The exercises were based on a fictitious case study that affected the urban environment of a small city. Prior to the meetings, a set of 8 possible recovery strategies was identified. The use of the MCDA tool showed that it facilitated the decision-making process because it allowed for a structured and transparent approach in which stakeholders with diverse backgrounds can express their opinions and perspectives and reach consensus on the most appropriate recovery strategy. As such, it could be applied to a broader field of research involving any chemical release that necessitates an extended recovery strategy. Future research is needed in order to incorporate psychosocial effects of a nuclear accident as well as a broader group of stakeholders in exercises. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:376-387. © 2020 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).
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.