Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33622259›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2021

Disaster safety assessment of primary healthcare facilities: a cross-sectional study in Kurdistan province of Iran.

Arezoo Yari, Yadolah Zarezadeh, Farin Fatemi, Ali Ardalan, Siamak Vahedi, Homa Yousefi-Khoshsabeghe, Mohsen Soufi Boubakran, Farzam Bidarpoor, Mohamad Esmaeil Motlagh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Arezoo YariSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
Yadolah ZarezadehSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
Farin FatemiResearch center for health sciences and technologies, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran.
Ali ArdalanDepartment of Health in Emergencies and Disasters, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Siamak VahediDepartment of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
Homa Yousefi-KhoshsabegheDepartment of Health in Emergencies and Disasters, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mohsen Soufi BoubakranDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
Farzam BidarpoorSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.
Mohamad Esmaeil MotlaghDepartment of Pediatrics, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran. Dr.motlagh.ms@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKurdistan province of Iran is among disaster prone areas of the country. The Primary Health Care facilities in Iran deliver health services at all levels nationwide. Resiliency and flexibility of such facilities is important when a disaster occurs. Thus, evaluating functional, structural, and non-structural aspects of safety of such facilities is essential.

methodsIn this cross-sectional study, the instrument used to evaluate four sections of functional, structural, non-structural, and total safety of 805 healthcare facilities in Kurdistan Province was the safety evaluation checklist of primary healthcare centers, provided by the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education. Each section scored from 0 to 100 points, and each section of the safety was classified to three safety classes according to their total score: low (≤34.0), average (34.01-66.0) and high (> 66.0).

resultsThe levels of functional, structural, non-structural and total safety were equal to 23.8, 20.2, 42.3 and 28.7, out of 100, respectively. Regarding the functional safety, rapid response team scored the highest, while financial affairs scored the lowest. Nevertheless, in structural and non-structural sections, the scores of different items were almost similar.

conclusionsThe results of the study revealed that safety score of primary healthcare facilities in general was unsatisfactory. Thus, promoting preparedness, resilience and continuity of service delivery of these facilities are essential to response to disasters and emergencies. The finding of this study could be beneficial for national and provincial decision-makers and policymakers in this regard.

Indexed as

Disaster PlanningDisastersPrimary Health CareCross-Sectional StudiesHealth FacilitiesHumansIranPrimary healthcare facilitiesRisk assessmentSafety assessment

Identifiers

PMID33622259
PMCPMC7903750

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.