ArticlePloS one2024
Learning interventions and training methods in health emergencies: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Reviewing a Theory Life Cycle in Disaster Management.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of a Community-Based Enhancement Program on Emergency Assistance and Marine Patient Transfer Coordination Competency Among Community Health Volunteers on the Remote Islands of Southern Thailand: Quasi-Experimental Study.Asian/Pacific Island nursing journal · 2026Article
- Scoping review of public health emergency management training programmes and curricula in Africa (2000-2025): implications for policy, practice and research.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Strengthening capacity for pandemic preparedness among health care professionals through interdisciplinary online learning: a participatory mixed-methods evaluation.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Provision of Massive Open Online Courses in Just-in-Time Modalities: Experience Report of the OpenWHO.org Platform's 7 Years of Learning Response to Health Emergencies.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- Correction: Learning interventions and training methods in health emergencies: A scoping review.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluating the effectiveness of the SHEL model in reducing occupational exposure risks among pre-hospital emergency personnel: a retrospective cohort study (2018-2024).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundKeeping the health workforce and the public informed about the latest evolving health information during a health emergency is critical to preventing, detecting and responding to infectious disease outbreaks or other health emergencies. Having a well-informed, ready, willing, and skilled workforce and an informed public can help save lives, reduce diseases and suffering, and minimize socio-economic loss in affected communities and countries. Providing "just in time" support and opportunities for learning in health emergencies is much needed for capacity building. In this paper, 'learning intervention' refers to the provision of ad-hoc, focused, or personalized training sessions with the goal of preparing the health workers for emergencies or filling specific knowledge or skill gaps. We refer to 'training methods' as instructional design strategies used to teach someone the necessary knowledge and skills to perform a task.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review to map and better understand what learning interventions and training methods have been used in different types of health emergencies and by whom. Studies were identified using six databases (Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Hinari, WorldCat, CABI and Web of Science) and by consulting with experts. Characteristics of studies were mapped and displayed and major topic areas were identified.
resultsOf the 319 records that were included, contexts most frequently covered were COVID-19, disasters in general, Ebola and wars. Four prominent topic areas were identified: 1) Knowledge acquisition, 2) Emergency plans, 3) Impact of the learning intervention, and 4) Training methods. Much of the evidence was based on observational methods with few trials, which likely reflects the unique context of each health emergency. Evolution of methods was apparent, particularly in virtual learning. Learning during health emergencies appeared to improve knowledge, general management of the situation, quality of life of both trainers and affected population, satisfaction and clinical outcomes.
conclusionThis is the first scoping review to map the evidence, which serves as a first step in developing urgently needed global guidance to further improve the quality and reach of learning interventions and training methods in this context.
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.