Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38920812›Full record

ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024

"Leading through Crisis": A Systematic Review of Institutional Decision-Makers in Emergency Contexts.

Ivan D'Alessio, Alessandro Quaglieri, Jessica Burrai, Alessandra Pizzo, Emanuela Mari, Umberto Aitella, Giulia Lausi, Ginevra Tagliaferri, Pierluigi Cordellieri, Anna Maria Giannini and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. 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
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

11 authors.

Ivan D'AlessioDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3239-2494
Alessandro QuaglieriDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2341-1876
Jessica BurraiDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3223-4421
Alessandra PizzoDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7330-0918
Emanuela MariDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2367-3139
Umberto AitellaDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0007-1815-586X
Giulia LausiDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6676-2230
Ginevra TagliaferriDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0009-0002-6776-2352
Pierluigi CordellieriDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6044-7109
Anna Maria GianniniDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0614-4457
Clarissa CricentiDepartment of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0876-7033

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review aims to map studies on governmental and institutional decision-making processes in emergencies. The literature reveals various approaches used by governments in managing emergencies. Consequently, this article suggests the need for a systematic literature review to outline how institutional decision-makers operate during emergencies. To achieve this goal, the most widely used databases in psychological research were consulted, with a specific focus on selecting scientific articles. Subsequently, these studies were rigorously assessed for their relevance using a structured literature selection process following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. At the conclusion of the review process, nine studies were identified, each suggesting different methods by which governments manage emergencies. This diversity arises because emergency decision-making processes must account for numerous variables that change depending on the type of crisis and the specific context. However, several critical aspects have emerged, such as the centrality of pre-disaster planning to improve intervention practices and methods, attention to information gaps that inevitably arise during an emergency, and the importance of streamlining and delegating decision-making to emergency responders in the field to counter the phenomenon of centralized decision-making that often hampers crucial interventions during emergencies.

Indexed as

catastrophe mitigation strategiescognitioncognitive psychologycrisis managementcrisis response strategiesdecision psychologydisaster preparedness strategiesemergency decision makingemergency managementemergency response tactics

Identifiers

PMID38920812
PMCPMC11201060

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.