ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Instruments for the assessment of disaster management among healthcare professionals: a scoping review.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- A mixed methods assessment of disaster management perceptions among healthcare practitioners in Qatar.Scientific reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The recent disasters have highlighted the importance of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in aiding communities and maintaining consistent services, prompting a global reconsideration of disaster preparedness approaches. This scoping review aimed to identify and evaluate the psychometric properties of the available instruments that measure disaster preparedness and readiness among HCPs. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using five concepts: disasters, health personnel, preparedness, management, and questionnaire. Three databases were searched for studies published in English. The identified instruments were summarized according to disaster type, disaster management phase, measurement scope/context, and healthcare discipline. The psychometric properties were evaluated according to content validity, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences. Results: The Emergency Preparedness Information Questionnaire (EPIQ) was the most commonly used instrument, while the Provider Response to Emergency Pandemic (PREP) and the Korean version of the Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool (DPET) were the most valid instruments. Most instruments have undergone limited psychometric evaluations, primarily focusing on content and internal structure validations, with response process, relation to other variables, and consequences not frequently reported. Conclusion: The review highlights the lack of well-developed assessment instruments for disaster preparedness in healthcare disciplines, highlighting the need for future research to develop and thoroughly validate such instruments. Systematic review registration: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#registryofsystematicreviewsmeta-analyses/registryofsystematicreviewsmeta-analysesdetails/638dbba71e82b30021c02680/.
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.