ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Developing and evaluating a Disaster Management Assessment Tool for Health Care Practitioners.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. 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.
- Beyond crisis: rethinking the evaluation of psychosocial interventions after mass casualty incidents.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Article
- A mixed methods assessment of disaster management perceptions among healthcare practitioners in Qatar.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Disaster Preparedness and Response Competencies Among Nurses in Disaster-Affected Hospital: An Analysis of Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices.Nursing research and practice · 2026Article
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
backgroundOver the last fifty years, the frequency and intensity of disasters have escalated, highlighting the importance of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) being thoroughly prepared for disaster management. Despite this pressing need, there is a notable lack of well-developed and rigorously evaluated assessment tools to evaluate disaster preparedness among HCPs across various disciplines and disaster scenarios. This study aims to develop and evaluate a Disaster Management Assessment Tool for Health Care Practitioners (DMAT_HCP).
methodsThe DMAT_HCP was designed following the four stages of the Disaster Management Framework and a literature review of similar previously validated tools. Content validity was assessed through two rounds of review by nine and six experts, whereas face validity was assessed by 11 HCPs. DMAT_HCP was tested on 107 HCPs from different health disciplines and settings to evaluate the structural (factor analysis) and construct (convergent and divergent) validities as well as internal consistency reliability.
resultsDMAT_HCP comprised five Likert scales that assess the preparedness and readiness of HCPs for disaster, with satisfactory content validity indices (CVI > 0.83 for six experts). Factor analysis of the entire set of DMAT_HCP items suggested six factors: knowledge, two sub-domains of attitude, practice, willingness to practice, and organization-based management, which together accounted for 77.9% of the variance in the data. Convergent and divergent validity analyses showed that all items within a section had a correlation coefficient greater than 0.4 with their corresponding section score, and they were more strongly correlated with their own section than with scores from other sections. Cronbach's alpha values for the individual sections ranged from 0.89 (attitude) to 0.97 (organization-based management), and the overall Cronbach's alpha for the DMAT_HCP was 0.90.
conclusionsThis study substantiated that DMAT_HCP is both conceptually and methodologically valid and reliable. It has demonstrated strong content validity, accurately measures the intended constructs, and effectively distinguishes between unrelated constructs. The tool also exhibited excellent internal consistency reliability across its components. The tool offers a comprehensive, globally applicable assessment of disaster management, suitable for use across various healthcare professions, settings, disaster contexts, and management phases.
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.