ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Risk perception of emergency medical technicians in biological disasters: a comparison between COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 cases.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency medical technicians (EMTs), positioned at the forefront of medical services, are at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 and passing it on to their families and communities than others. Recognizing the risks associated with this disease can play a crucial role in the care and prevention process. Consequently, this study evaluated the level of risk perception (RP) regarding COVID-19 among EMTs and compared it between those who have contracted the disease and those who have not.
methodsThis was a cross-sectional descriptive-analytical study conducted in 2021. This study employed simple random sampling to select 200 EMTs affiliated with Birjand University of Medical Sciences. The sample included 100 EMTs who had contracted COVID-19 and 100 who had not. Data were collected through a researcher-designed questionnaire, distributed online via WhatsApp and Telegram groups among the participants. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 16, utilizing descriptive statistical methods (frequency, mean, and standard deviation) along with inferential statistical tests such as independent t-tests, chi-square, and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
resultsThe infected EMTs exhibited a moderate perception of the risk of COVID-19, while the non-infected EMTs reported a high level of RP. The independent t-test confirmed that the mean total score for COVID-19 RP was significantly lower in the infected EMTs compared to the non-infected group (mean RP score: infected 150.82 ± 32.24 vs. non-infected 161.54 ± 22.50, P = 0.007). Additionally, ANOVA revealed that none of the demographic variables individually had a significant impact on the level of COVID-19 RP (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the interaction effect between the demographic variables and the groups was also insignificant (P > 0.05).
conclusionEMTs who contracted COVID-19 had a significantly lower RP compared to their non-infected counterparts. This reduced awareness of COVID-19 risks likely contributed to their infection, highlighting the critical role of RP in disease prevention. Targeted educational programs to enhance RP among EMTs could foster stronger adherence to preventive measures, ultimately reducing infection rates during future biological disasters. Therefore, this study not only contributes to expanding existing knowledge in this field but also assists policymakers and health administrators in improving decision-making to strengthen epidemic preparedness.
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.