ArticleBMJ open2024
Identifying essential resource parameters for pandemic preparedness and response: an international Delphi study within the EU PANDEM-2 project.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the crucial role of healthcare and public health resource management, where scarcity impairs pandemic response resulting in increased disease transmission, delayed patient care and poorer health outcomes. In the EU PANDEM-2 project, we aimed to identify essential resource parameters for pandemic preparedness and response in the context of an emerging viral respiratory illness.
designAfter performing a systematic literature review, we conducted a Delphi study consisting of a structured questionnaire and consensus round with two separate panels of European public health experts (PHEs) and clinicians, respectively. Resources were categorised as material (n=23), human (n=18) or pharmaceutical (n=12). Data were analysed descriptively for both panels.
resultsParticipants were 17 PHEs and 16 clinicians from nine countries. Consensus between the two panels was found on 40 resource parameters (17 material, 14 human, 9 pharmaceutical; 33 accepted and 7 rejected). Notably, clinicians selected three home care resources while PHEs did not, and PHEs selected two pharmaceutical resources which clinicians did not. No consensus was observed on 13 resources. Eleven additional resources were suggested and included (five for PHE and six for clinicians) among which were personal protective equipment for mobile teams, resources for primary care and resources related to mechanical ventilation.
conclusionsThe high level of consensus between the two expert panels indicates common goals in pandemic resource planning. The disagreement on 13 resource parameters reflects the different priorities between PHEs and clinicians in pandemic planning. This study has demonstrated the core components of resource modelling required for pandemic preparedness planning and shows the importance of consulting experts with both public health and clinical backgrounds. Including our proposed resources in pandemic models allows for more enhanced planning and training activities for future pandemics.
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.