ArticleBMC health services research2025
Resilience testing in action - piloting the health system resilience testing tool with a pandemic scenario in Finland.
Article in BMC health services 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystem-wide approaches to measure, prepare for and manage the next acute shock are needed. We document the application of the health system resilience testing tool to a hypothetical pandemic scenario in Finland.
methodsThe resilience testing tool promoted pre-crisis identification of resilience gaps and was built on the Health Systems Performance Assessment Framework and the Shock Cycle Framework. It included guidance on building a shock scenario, conducting a semi-structured resilience testing dialogue with health system stakeholders, and evaluating resilience. A hypothetical scenario of a pandemic affecting predominantly children was addressed in a semi-structured, mixed-methods resilience test in Finland. The resilience test brought together national experts and other stakeholders to identify the health system weaknesses exposed by the scenario.
resultsThe resilience testing tool enabled the preparation for the high-level dialogue that identified actionable systemic weaknesses that undermine resilience. The identified weaknesses in the Finnish health system included: a lack of clarity of the process and value-basis of decision-making; sustaining trust towards and between authorities; multi-sectoral collaboration; safeguarding the health workforce; and developing a comprehensive knowledge base.
conclusionsThe main benefit of the resilience testing methodology is the ability to bring key actors together to exchange different perspectives on how a health system functions during a crisis. The discussions at the high-level dialogue revealed the need for a mechanism, such as a resilience testing tool, to elucidate the range of practical challenges and how to potentially address them. The discussions also captured themes that are not routinely identified in existing performance assessment mechanisms, such as ethical considerations, values, and political determinants of the health system response. The Finnish pilot study was used to update the structure and facilitation of the resilience testing tool. Further suggested improvements for resilience testing include greater clarification for participants on the scenario, an increased emphasis on recovery and learning, and a greater representation of stakeholders from the community.
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.