ArticleBMC public health2025
A preliminary validation of the public's emergency preparedness questionnaire for major emerging infectious diseases.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and consensus-based validation of a comprehensive population survey instrument for municipal crisis preparedness: a three-round Delphi study (KOMPAKT112).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMajor emerging infectious diseases (MEIDs) have been considered as a pressing challenge to global public health. The world will face ongoing and increasing challenges posed by these diseases in the future. However, efficient emergency preparedness among the public could greatly reduce the risk of the spread of MEIDs. There is a scarcity of studies that evaluate the emergency preparedness of the public during MEIDs, which makes it difficult to clarify the emergency preparedness of the public during MEIDs. This study aims to validate the public's emergency preparedness questionnaire for MEIDs to assess the emergency preparedness of public during the outbreak of MEIDs.
methodsThe questionnaire was constructed through a literature review, the Delphi method, and the analytic hierarchy process. From March to July 2023, experts were invited to conduct the content validity of the questionnaire, and then a cross-sectional survey online and in person was conducted to evaluate the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Internal consistency, split-half reliability and test-retest reliability were used to test the reliability. Exploratory factor analysis was used to measure the construct validity.
resultsThe final questionnaire is composed of 48 items and five factors (cooperating with prevention and control work, preparing knowledge and coping strategies, securing supplies and equipment, preparing economic resources, and maintaining physical and mental health), and adopted the 5-point scoring method. The cumulative contribution of variance was 50.864%. The internal consistency, split-half reliability and test-retest reliability of the questionnaire were 0.953, 0.834 and 0.900, respectively.
conclusionsThe developed questionnaire exhibits strong reliability and validity for assessing public emergency preparedness during major emerging infectious diseases (MEIDs). Based on these findings, we recommend enhancing public education, implementing supportive policies, fostering community engagement, improving resource accessibility, and providing health support to better prepare the public for future outbreaks, thereby strengthening global public health security.
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.