ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2024
"Leading through Crisis": A Systematic Review of Institutional Decision-Makers in Emergency Contexts.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "What about Military Decision-Making?": A Bibliometric Review of Published Articles.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.