Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40479403›Full record

ArticleJournal of contingencies and crisis management2022

Group processes and interoperability: A longitudinal case study analysis of the UK's civil contingency response to Covid-19.

Matthew Radburn, Clifford Stott, Rebecca Bryant, Bethan Morgan, Deborah Tallent, Louise Davidson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of contingencies and crisis management, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

6 authors.

Matthew RadburnSchool of Psychology Keele University Keele Staffordshire UK.
Clifford StottSchool of Psychology Keele University Keele Staffordshire UK.
Rebecca BryantStaffordshire Fire and Rescue Service Stone Staffordshire UK.
Bethan MorganStaffordshire Civil Contingencies Unit Stone Staffordshire UK.
Deborah TallentSchool of Psychology Keele University Keele Staffordshire UK.
Louise DavidsonBehavioural Science Team, Emergency Response Department Science & Technology, Health Protection Directorate Public Health England London UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8571-7443

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our case study explored a Local Resilience Forum's (LRF) civil contingency response to COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. We undertook 19 semistructured ethnographic longitudinal interviews, between March 25, 2020 and February 17, 2021, with a Director of a Civil Contingencies Unit and a Chief Fire Officer who both played key roles within their LRF. Within these interviews, we focused on their strategic level decision-making and how their relationship with national government impacted on local processes and outcomes. Using a form of grounded theory, our data describe the chronological evolution of an increasingly effective localized approach toward outbreak control and a growing resilience in dealing with concurrent emergency incidents. However, we also highlight how national government organizations imposed central control on aspects of the response in ways that undermined or misaligned with local preparedness. Thus, during emergencies, central governments can undermine the principle of subsidiarity and damage the ways in which LRFs can help scaffold local resilience. Our work contributes to the theoretical understanding of the social psychological factors that can shape the behaviour of responder agencies during a prolonged crisis. In particular, the implications of our analysis for advancing our conceptual understanding of strategic decision-making during emergencies are discussed.

Indexed as

civil contingency responseCOVID‐19emergency managementgroup processesintergroup relationsInteroperabilitysocial identitystrategic decision‐making

Identifiers

PMID40479403
PMCPMC9350367

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.