Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40153786›Full record

Trial reportJMIR formative research2025

Ambulance Commanders' Reluctance to Enter Road Tunnels in Simulated Incidents and the Effects of a Tunnel-Specific e-Learning Course on Decision-Making: Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

Johan Hylander, Lina Gyllencreutz, Michael Haney, Anton Westman

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Johan HylanderDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1346-7200
Lina GyllencreutzDepartment of Nursing, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-1848-060X
Michael HaneyDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4049-8910
Anton WestmanDepartment of Diagnostics and Intervention, Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-3755-5507

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal response to a major incident in a road tunnel involves efficient decision-making among the responding emergency services (fire and rescue services, police, and ambulances). The infrequent occurrence of road tunnel incidents may entail unfamiliarity with the tunnel environment and lead to uncertain and inefficient decision-making among emergency services commanders. Ambulance commanders have requested tunnel-specific learning materials to improve their preparedness.

objectiveWe aimed to assess decision-making among ambulance commanders in simulated road tunnel incidents after they had participated in a tunnel-specific e-learning course designed to support timely and correct decisions in this context.

methodsWe conducted a web-based intervention study involving 20 participants from emergency medical services in Sweden who were randomly allocated to a test or control group. The control group (n=10, 50%) received a lecture on general incident management, while the intervention group (n=10, 50%) completed an e-learning course consisting of 5 modules focused on tunnel structure, safety, and collaboration in response. The participants took part in 2 simulation-based assessments for ambulance commander decision-making in major road tunnel incidents 1 month and 6 months after their allocated study intervention. In each simulation, the participants decided on the best course of action at 15 independent decision points, designed as multiple-choice questions. The primary outcome was the correct response to the question regarding how to appropriately enter the road tunnel. The secondary outcome measurements were correct or incorrect responses and the time taken to decide for each of the 15 decisions. Limited in-depth follow-up interviews were conducted with participants (n=5, 25%), and collected data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

resultsAll 20 participants completed the first simulation, and 16 (80%) completed the second. The main finding was that none (0/20, 0%) of the participants correctly answered the question on entering the tunnel system in the 1-month assessment. There were no significant differences between the groups (P=.59; 2-sample test of proportions) in the second assessment. The e-learning course was not associated with more correct answers at the first assessment, including accounting for participant factors (mean difference between groups: -0.58 points, 95% CI -1.88 to 0.73; P=.36). The e-learning course was also not associated with a shorter time to completion compared to the nonintervention group in either assessment. Interviews identified 3 categories linked to the main outcome: information (lack of), risk (limited knowledge and equipment), and mitigation (access to maps and aide-mémoire).

conclusionsParticipation in a tunnel-specific e-learning course did not result in a measurable change in ambulance commanders' decision-making behavior during simulated road tunnel incidents. The observed hesitation to enter the road tunnel system may have several plausible causes, such as the lack of actionable intelligence and tunnel-specific plans. This novel approach to assessing commander decision-making may be transferable to other educational settings.

Indexed as

AmbulancesDecision MakingEmergency RespondersAdultEmergency Medical ServicesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSwedendisaster medicinee-learningincident managementmajor incidentroad tunnels

Identifiers

PMID40153786
PMCPMC11992495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.