Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38191494›Full record

ReviewHealth research policy and systems2024

The response of the Military Health System (MHS) to the COVID-19 pandemic: a summary of findings from MHS reviews.

Alysa Pomer, Satish Munigala, Christian L Coles, Jessica Pope Mitro, Andrew J Schoenfeld, Joel S Weissman, Tracey Perez Koehlmoos

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health research policy and systems, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alysa PomerCenter for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02120, United States of America. apomer1@bwh.harvard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1267-1189
Satish MunigalaHenry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.
Christian L ColesHenry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.
Jessica Pope MitroDepartment of Global and Community Health, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, United States of America.
Andrew J SchoenfeldDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Joel S WeissmanCenter for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02120, United States of America.
Tracey Perez KoehlmoosUniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD, United States of America.

Funding

Defense Health Agency HU0012120089
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused major disruptions to the US Military Health System (MHS). In this study, we evaluated the MHS response to the pandemic to understand the impact of the pandemic response in a large, national, integrated healthcare system providing care for ~ 9 million beneficiaries.

methodsWe performed a narrative literature review of 16 internal Department of Defense (DoD) reports, including reviews mandated by the US Congress in response to the pandemic. We categorized the findings using the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy (DOTMLPF-P) framework developed by the DoD to assess system efficiency and effectiveness.

resultsThe majority of the findings were in the policy, organization, and personnel categories. Key findings showed that the MHS structure to address surge situations was beneficial during the pandemic response, and the rapid growth of telehealth created the potential impact for improved access to routine and specialized care. However, organizational transition contributed to miscommunication and uneven implementation of policies; disruptions affected clinical training, upskilling, and the supply chain; and staffing shortages contributed to burnout among healthcare workers.

conclusionGiven its highly integrated, vertical structure, the MHS was in a better position than many civilian healthcare networks to respond efficiently to the pandemic. However, similar to the US civilian sector, the MHS also experienced delays in care, staffing and materiel challenges, and a rapid switch to telehealth. Lessons regarding the importance of communication and preparation for future public health emergency responses are relevant to civilian healthcare systems responding to COVID-19 and other similar public health crises.

Indexed as

COVID-19Military Health ServicesCommunicationHealth FacilitiesHumansPandemicsUnited StatesCOVID-19 pandemic responseMilitary healthMilitary Health SystemMilitary medicine

Identifiers

PMID38191494
PMCPMC10773054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.