ArticlePloS one2025
Community emergency management policy in China using a policy text tool.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Systematically analyzing the current status and problems of the Community Emergency Management Policy (CEMP) system in China and proposing practical suggestions that are conducive to subsequent policy formulation and improvement are important for improving community emergency management capabilities and levels and promoting sustainable community development. Based on the two-dimensional analysis framework of "policy tools-policy objectives", this paper draws from content analysis and social network analysis, quantitatively analyzing the CEMP texts at the national level from 2004 to 2024. The results show that the CEMP system in China has essentially taken shape, but there are still some problems, such as the uneven use of policy tools, the unbalanced internal structure of policy tools, the large distribution gap of policy objective elements, and the adaptability between policy tools and policy objectives, which needs to be improved. Given these results, we suggest 1) Appropriately increasing the frequency of using demand-type policy tools and effectively optimizing the internal structure of the three main types of policy tools; 2) Comprehensively deepening the reform of CEMP objectives; and 3) Reasonably improving the adaptability between policy tools and objectives.
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.