ArticleGlobal health research and policy2025
Development and validation of an assessment tool for public health emergency management program.
Article in Global health research and policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of emergency management capabilities for public health emergencies in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Building systems for preparedness: Global scoping studies on institutional governance and National Public Health Agencies.PLOS global public health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEffective public health emergency management (PHEM) is crucial for safeguarding population health and societal resilience in the face of escalating global threats. However, standardized tools for comprehensively assessing emergency readiness across diverse contexts are lacking, particularly in resource-constrained settings like Ethiopia. Existing assessment approaches have demonstrated limitations, including narrow scope focused on specific hazards or sectors, over-emphasis on implementation processes rather than programmatic outcomes, and lack of empirical grounding in tool development and validation. This study aimed to develop and validate a standardized tool to assess PHEM programs.
methodsThis study employed a sequential exploratory mixed methods design. Relevant assessment domains were identified through a literature review, stakeholder consultations, and expert consultations conducted at a workshop. This study utilizes Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework to guide the assessment of public health emergency management. A questionnaire containing 60 items was then generated and underwent translation, face validation, and content validity assessment. Construct validity was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis with responses from 260 professionals. Internal consistency reliability was assessed utilizing Cronbach's alpha.
resultsA 45-item tool for assessing PHEM programs in diverse contexts in Ethiopia was developed and validated. The tool demonstrated high content validity (CVIs > 0.83), good construct validity (15-factor structure explaining 74.8% variance), and excellent reliability (overall α = 0.863, subscales > 0.70). The final tool covers domains such as multi-sectoral coordination, resource allocation, transparency/accountability, workforce capacity, and provision of essential supplies.
conclusionsThis study developed a comprehensive tool to assess emergency management programs across diverse contexts. The validation revealed critical preparedness factors like multi-sector coordination, funding transparency and workforce strength. The mixed-methods approach proved effective for crafting contextually appropriate evaluation methods in low-resource settings with infrastructure barriers. By standardizing measurement of capacities and gaps, this validated tool can guide strategic policy planning to bolster resilience nationwide. Ongoing monitoring of progress using this model can help prioritize investments and direct coordinated responses to future crises.
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.