ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2024
Understanding uptake of information about innovations among emergency department clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Innovation Deimplementation in Emergency Departments During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Qualitative Study of Clinicians' Decision-Making.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Translational Success and Pharmacoeconomic Lessons of Pandemic-Driven Drug Repurposing.Cureus · 2025Review
- Understanding uptake of information about innovations among emergency department clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, little was known about managing sick patients, but emergency department (ED) clinicians had to decide which treatments and care processes to adopt. Our objective was to describe how ED clinicians learned about innovations and how they assessed them for credibility during the pandemic. Methods: We purposively sampled clinicians from hospital-based EDs to conduct focus groups with ED clinicians and staff. We used both inductive and deductive approaches to conduct thematic analysis of transcripts. Results: We conducted focus groups with clinicians from eight EDs across the United States. We found that ED clinicians in our sample relied on friends and colleagues or departmental and institutional leadership for information on innovations. They used social media sources when they came from credible accounts but did not directly seek information from professional societies. Clinicians reported a range of challenges to obtain credible information during the pandemic, including a fractured and changing information environment, policies misaligned across clinical sites or that conflicted with clinical knowledge, high patient volume, fear of harming patients, and untimely information. Facilitators included access to experienced and trusted colleagues and leaders and practicing at multiple EDs. Conclusion: Participants cited anecdotal evidence, institutional practice, and word-of-mouth-rather than peer-reviewed evidence and professional society communications-as their primary sources of information about care innovations during the early phases of the pandemic. These results underscore the importance of developing trusted local mechanisms and wider networks to identify and vet information for frontline clinicians during rapidly emerging public health emergencies.
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.