ReviewBMC emergency medicine2022
Design and validation of a preparedness evaluation tool of pre-hospital emergency medical services for terrorist attacks: a mixed method study.
Review in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disaster readiness and resilience among emergency medical service providers: a cross-sectional study in Iran.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- Designing a model for hospital preparedness against chemical weapons of mass destruction terrorist incidents: a mixed-method study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Challenges faced by the Iranian health system in response process to terrorist explosive attacks: a descriptive phenomenology qualitative study of live experiences.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Identifying the components of prehospital emergency preparedness in radiological and nuclear incidents: a scoping review.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- STEMI in Times of Crisis: Comparative Analysis During Pandemic and War.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- 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
introductionTerrorist attacks are one of the human problems that affect many countries, leaving behind a huge toll of disabilities and deaths. The aim of this study was to use a mixed-method analysis to design and validate an evaluation tool for pre-hospital emergency medical services for terrorist attacks.
methodsThe present study is a mixed-method (qualitative and quantitative) study that was conducted in two phases. In the qualitative phase (item generation), semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 Iranian emergency medical technicians who were selected through a purposive sampling method and a scoping literature review was conducted to generate an item pool for the preparedness evaluation of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) in terrorist attacks. In the quantitative phase (item reduction), for validity of tool face, content and construct validity, were performed; for tool reliability, the test and retest and intra-class correlation coefficient were evaluated.
resultsAt the first stage, 7 main categories and 16 subcategories were extracted from the data, the main categories including "Policy and Planning", "Education and Exercise "," Surge Capacity", "Safety and Security", "Command, Control and Coordination", "Information and Communication Management "and "Response Operations Management". The initial item pool included 160 items that were reduced to 110 after assessment of validity (face, content and construct). intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.71) examination and Pearson correlation test (r = 0.81) indicated that the tool was also reliable.
conclusionThe research findings provide a new perspective to understand the preparedness of pre-hospital emergency medical services for terrorist attacks. The existing 110-item tool can evaluate preparedness of pre-hospital emergency medical services for terrorist attacks 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.