Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37057052›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Design and psychometrics of risk assessment tool for makeshift hospitals: Focusing on pandemics.

Arezoo Dehghani, Zohreh Ghomian, Zahra Eskandari

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 43% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arezoo DehghaniDepartment of Health in Disasters and Emergencies, School of Public Health and Safety, Shahid Beheshty University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zohreh GhomianSafety Promotion and Injury Prevention Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Zahra EskandariDepartment of Medical Emergencies, Nursing School, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Alborz, Iran.
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRJahrom University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pandemics caused a change in the health service delivery system. In disasters with massive injuries or epidemic, the capacity to admit the injured and infected patients to provide health services faces the challenges. Covid-19 virus is a respiratory disease that from its emergence until January 18, 2023, the Covid-19 virus has infected more than 672 million people worldwide. In most countries, makeshift hospital has been set up as intermediate medical centers to keep people who are likely to be carriers of the disease to control communicable diseases. Most makeshift hospitals already have alternative uses and, have changed into temporary or intermediate care centers. Based on the search of research team, any standard tools were found to assess the makeshift hospitals safety. All the safety assessment tools were related to the hospital, but since makeshift hospitals are mostly non-hospital structures, the research team has designed and validate a makeshift hospital safety assessment tool for the first time in this study. The present study is a mixed method that was conducted in 3 phases including; a document review, explaining the components affecting non-structural and functional safety of the makeshift hospital, designing makeshift hospital safety assessment tools and analyzing the results and validating it in 2022. Content validity and reliability were measured by CVR and CVI, ICC and Cronbach's alpha. In the fourth phase, with the participation of 15 specialists, managers, experts, qualitative and quantitative validity of content was done. Data were analyzed by SPSS version 21 software. The final tool contains 186 items and a 5-point Likert designed for very low safety (1), low safety (2), moderate safety (3), good safety (4), and very good safety (5). The scores of each makeshift hospital were calculated based on the items and the degree of safety. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for tool was 0.98. Retesting the questionnaire after two weeks confirmed the stability of tool (ICC = 0.98). The validity and reliability of this tool were confirmed with 186 items in 2 factors and 26 subcategories including risk of disaster, non-structural safety, safety of windows and shutters, hospital access, information and communication management, patient safety and hygiene and etc. All centers providing health services, whether temporarily or permanently, must have safety to continue their activities in disaster and maintain the safety and health of staff and inpatients. The makeshift hospital safety tool can be a suitable tool for assessing the risk and eliminating their vulnerabilities, and it can also provide important indicators for the design and set up of the makeshift hospital to policymakers and executives in the field of health.

Indexed as

Disasters managementField hospitalMakeshift hospitalPandemicsTemporary hospital safety assessment

Identifiers

PMID37057052
PMCPMC10060022
OpenAlexW4361306623

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.