SynthesisPloS one2022
Developing and psychometric testing of the evaluation tool for disaster exercises design stage: A mixed method study.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and psychometric evaluation of a multimedia quality assessment tool for health education and promotion through mixed methods.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Designing, psychometric, and application of measurement instrument for Self-Care Literacy in Prevention of Prostate Cancer (SCL-PCa): A mixed-method study protocol.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Article
- A qualitative study on barriers and strategies to hospital preparedness against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear incidents.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Development and validation of the Nursing Journal Club Perception Scale (NJCPS).Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Construction and validity of educational technology in audiovisual media on premature newborn care.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2023Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExercise in different health sectors is an important step in preparing programs for disaster risk management. The present study aimed to develop and validate a tool for evaluating disaster exercises during the design stage in the health sector.
methodsThis methodological study was conducted in two phases using an explanatory sequential mixed method approach. Semi-structured interviews with 25 disaster-related health professionals were conducted during the qualitative phase (item generation), and a systematic review was done to evaluate items pool of disaster exercises design stage tool. The quantitative phase (item reduction) assessed both face and content validity, as well as reliability using Cronbach's alpha and intra-class correlation coefficient.
resultsAt the first stage four main categories and eleven subcategories were extracted from the data, the main categories including "coordination, command and guidance of exercise", "hardware and software requirements of exercise ", "organizational exercise resources", and "communication and exercise public information". The initial items pool included 164 items that were reduced to 50 after the assessment of validity (face and content). Cronbach's alpha (0.89) and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.72) tests indicated that the tool is also reliable.
conclusionThe research findings provide a new categorization perspective to understand the disaster exercises evaluation in the health sector. The existing 50-item tool can evaluate disaster exercises design stage in the health sector through collecting data with appropriate validity and reliability.
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.