Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41072056›Full record

ReviewOnline journal of public health informatics2025

Cultivating Disaster Preparedness: Scoping Review of Technology's Contribution to Situational Awareness and Disaster Mindset in Disaster Medicine.

Amir Khorram-Manesh, Marius Rohde Johannessen, Laurits Rauer Nielsen, Eric Carlström, Lasse Berntzen, Lene Sandberg, Jarle Løwe Sørensen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Online journal of public health informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

7 authors.

Amir Khorram-ManeshSurgery, Clinical Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Universitetsplatsen 1, Gothenburg, 405 30, Sweden, 46 0317860000, 46 031786497.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2734-5733
Marius Rohde JohannessenDepartment of Business, History and Social Sciences, USN School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway, Borre, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6343-3207
Laurits Rauer NielsenManagement and Administration Emergency and Risk Management, University College Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3071-973X
Eric CarlströmLearning and Leadership for Health Care Professionals, Institute of Health and Care Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9463-7341
Lasse BerntzenDepartment of Business, Marketing and Law, USN School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway, Borre, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8399-5474
Lene SandbergManagement and Administration Emergency and Risk Management, University College Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-6031-8132
Jarle Løwe SørensenDepartment of Business, History and Social Sciences, USN School of Business, University of South-Eastern Norway, Borre, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4665-6529

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Disaster medicine education increasingly emphasizes situational awareness and a proactive disaster mindset as crucial competencies for effective response. Situational awareness involves comprehending the disaster environment to make informed decisions under pressure, while a disaster mindset encompasses psychological resilience and effective functioning amid chaos. Integrating technologies into simulation training allows experiential learning that bridges these theoretical concepts with practical application. Objective: This study aims to investigate the current status of teaching these concepts and the use of technology in fostering situational awareness and a disaster mindset within disaster medicine education by reviewing the existing literature. Methods: This study used a scoping review of scientific studies (2005-2025), obtained from PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, complemented by a Google Scholar search. From December 1, 2024, to the end of January 2025, 3 reviewers searched, compiled, reviewed, and selected eligible studies in English, discussing the use of technology in fostering situational awareness and disaster mindset. Results: Out of 217 initially identified records, 49 studies met the inclusion criteria after a 2-stage screening and full-text review process. Of these, 42 were peer-reviewed scientific articles and 7 were official documents. Approximately 86% (42/49) of the studies addressed situational awareness, while only 2% (1/49) explicitly focused on the concept of disaster mindset. Most of the included studies highlighted the use of immersive technologies such as virtual and augmented reality, geographic information systems, and artificial intelligence-driven tools to enhance real-time information processing and decision-making in disaster education contexts. By strategically incorporating these advanced tools into educational frameworks, the divide between theoretical knowledge and practical application can effectively be bridged, fostering essential experiential learning and developing robust psychological readiness for future challenges. Conclusions: Simulation training enhances situational awareness and disaster mindset, bridging the gap between theory and practice through experiential learning. The findings from this review highlight current pedagogical approaches and technological applications, identifying gaps and future directions for enhancing disaster medicine education.

Indexed as

disaster educationdisaster medicinedisaster mindsetsimulation exercisessituational awareness

Identifiers

PMID41072056
PMCPMC12513712

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.