ArticleJournal of emergencies, trauma, and shock
Global Perspectives on Innovations in Emergency Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Study.
Article in Journal of emergencies, trauma, and shock. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptance of Technological Innovations in Emergency Departments: An Empirical Study Based on an Extended TAM.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The One Big Beautiful Bill: A Looming Crisis for Health Equity and Emergency Medicine.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In mid-2020, the Emergency Medicine Education and Research by Global Experts (EMERGE) network surveyed the emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We demonstrated that innovative measures were being generated at unprecedented rates. Our aim was to build on these findings to develop the first theoretical model with utility in assessing and developing emergency innovations. Methods: Phase 1 of a two-phase, explanatory sequential mixed methods study was a secondary analysis of the original EMERGE survey. Phase 2 involved follow-up interviews of a purposeful sample of 15 of the original survey respondents, representing 12 countries and all 6 World Health Organization regions. Thematic analysis was performed by three members of the research team. Results: Innovation is a nonlinear process in which ideas are developed, implemented, refined, and spread. Ideas grew from departmental needs or the spread of successful innovations from other sites. Development was highly localized, influenced by institutional and regional factors. Obtaining buy-in from relevant stakeholders and addressing various barriers were essential to implementation. The majority of innovations then underwent a process of evolution before some were spread to other institutions through a largely unidirectional flow of information. Conclusions: This study proposes the first model for emergency innovation processes and highlights multiple areas for improvement. Understanding how to prioritize departmental needs and the barriers may streamline development and implementation. Furthermore, the apparent unidirectional flow of information demonstrated by our participants suggests both an opportunity and a need for improved information systems. We present a framework for further research and an outline for innovation management.
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.