Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35901033›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Challenges in managing, sustaining, and assessing closed point of dispensing sites: Findings from a qualitative study.

Terri Rebmann, Kyle Foerst, Rachel L Charney, Rachel L Mazzara, Jessica Sandcork

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Terri RebmannInstitute for Biosecurity, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-1338-8804
Kyle FoerstSaint Louis County Department of Public Health, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
Rachel L CharneyInstitute for Biosecurity, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
Rachel L MazzaraInstitute for Biosecurity, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.
Jessica SandcorkInstitute for Biosecurity, College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Most U.S. public health agencies rely upon closed points of dispensing (PODs) to aid in medical countermeasure (MCM) distribution. However, few studies have focused on how to assess closed POD preparedness and none have examined best practices for managing sites once they have been recruited. This study involved qualitative interviews with U.S. disaster planners to elucidate their approaches and challenges to managing, sustaining, and assessing existing closed POD sites. In all, 16 disaster planners participated. Common management practices included frequent communication with sites, providing formal and informal training, and assisting with POD exercises. Very few jurisdictions reported doing formal assessments of closed POD sites. The largest challenges identified were staff turnover and keeping sites engaged, sometimes leading to sites voluntarily withdrawing or needing to be removed from being a closed POD. Frequent communication and building partnerships with closed POD site personnel were recommended to maintain and sustain existing sites. Formal and informal assessments will provide assurance of deployment readiness. Closed POD management is a challenging, but essential process to ensure readiness to deploy. Practices outlined by this study can be implemented to enhance closed POD network management at other jurisdictions. This should increase the ability to distribute MCMs rapidly during a future event, contributing to stronger community resilience. Public health officials should continue expanding and improving closed POD networks to enable MCM delivery and minimize morbidity and mortality related to mass casualty events.

Indexed as

Disaster PlanningMass Casualty IncidentsMedical CountermeasuresHumansPublic HealthQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID35901033
PMCPMC9333284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.