ArticleBMC health services research2025
Hybrid method analysis of fire accidents in medical centers: a focus on a disastrous fire during the pandemic.
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. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical centers face significant fire accident risk, especially during the pandemic. This study examines the applicability of mixed-method research for analyzing fire accidents in medical centers and focuses on a disastrous fire during the pandemic as a case study.
methodsData were collected using a triangulation approach from various sources, including accident reports, regulatory body reports, expert interviews, and laws and regulations. The data were analyzed using inductive and deductive content analysis methods. The trustworthiness of the findings was evaluated using five criteria: credibility, transferability, confirmability, dependability, and authenticity.
resultsThe inductive content analysis identified 42 causal factors classified into five categories and 15 subcategories. AcciMap and STAMP methods were used to selectively code hierarchical causal relationships, control loops, and feedback cycles. Findings showed that the main causal factors of fire accidents were converting a residential building to a medical center and unregulated development without considering building safety.
conclusionThe combination of content analysis, AcciMap, and STAMP methods showed that amending laws and regulations related to establishing medical centers and shortening supervision loops is the crucial resilience cycle against fire accidents in medical centers. The study demonstrated that inductive content analysis can extract accident causal factors with desirable trustworthiness. At the same time, the AcciMap and STAMP methods can be applied in deductive content analysis of causal factors based on the hierarchy of organizational structures.
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.