ArticleBMJ open2022
Quantitative analysis of International Health Regulations Annual Reports to identify global disparities in the preparedness for radiation emergencies.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Relevance of the world health organization in a multipolar world in solving global health challenges.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Dose Reconstruction After a WD‒XRF Spectrometer Accident Using Minute-Rate TLD Measurements.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Progress on International Health Regulations (2005) core capacities in WHO's Western Pacific Region.Western Pacific surveillance and response journal : WPSARArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesRadiation emergencies are rare but can have minor confined effects to catastrophic consequences across the large geographical territories. Geographical disparities in the preparedness for radiation emergencies can negatively impact public-safety and delay protective actions. We examined such disparities using the global and regional radiation preparedness data from the revised annual International Health Regulations (IHR) data sets. SETTINGS: We used IHR State Party Annual Reporting (SPAR) tool and its associated health indicators developed to mitigate public health risk from radiation emergencies. Using the most recent (2019) SPAR database developed for radiation emergencies, along with 12 other cross-sector indicators, we examined the disparities among WHO state and region-wide capacity scores for operational preparedness.
resultsBased on the analysis of the 2019 annual reporting data sets from 171 countries, radiation emergency was one of the top three global challenges with an average global preparedness capacity of 55%. Radiation emergency preparedness capacity scores showed highest dispersion score among all 13 capacities suggesting higher disparities for preparedness across the globe. Only 38% of the countries had advanced functional capacity with ≥80% operational readiness, with 28% countries having low to very low operational readiness. No geographical regions had ≥80% operational readiness for radiation emergencies, with 4/6 geographical regions showing limited capacity or effectiveness. Global data from 171 countries showed that the capacity to respond to radiation emergencies correlated with the capacity for chemical events with a correlation coefficient (ρ) of 0.70 (CI 0.61 to 0.77).
conclusionWe found major global disparities for the operational preparedness against radiation emergencies. Collaborative approaches involving the public health officials and policymakers at the regional and state levels are needed to develop additional guidance to adapt emergency preparedness plans for radiation incidents.
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.