ArticleBMC public health2024
Public and health care provider attitudes, understanding, and behaviors regarding emergency use authorizations: a scoping literature review.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnder Sect. 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, when the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary issues a declaration based on one of four types of determinations, FDA may authorize an unapproved product or unapproved uses of an approved product for emergency use. It is unclear how much the public and health care providers understand about emergency use authorizations and how that understanding influences perceptions or behavioral intentions. The current study aimed to explore consumer and health care provider perceptions of emergency use authorizations and how promotion of emergency use authorizations has been investigated in the literature.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review via PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL for original research published in English from January 1, 2012, through November 10, 2022. We conducted surveillance of the literature through March 2023.
resultsWe identified 13 studies reported in 14 publications that addressed public and health care provider attitudes, understanding, and behaviors with regard to products authorized under an emergency use authorization. We did not identify any articles describing research regarding the promotion of emergency use authorization products. Findings suggest gaps in understanding of emergency use authorizations, both for the public and health care providers. Findings also suggest the public and health care providers have concerns about safety or the lack of full FDA approval that may contribute to decreased willingness to receive treatments and vaccines under an emergency use authorization.
conclusionsFuture research should explore how emergency use authorizations have been promoted and how that promotion impacts public and health care provider perceptions.
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.