ArticleMilitary medicine2026
A Qualitative Study on Civil-Military Cooperation in a Dutch Hospital During COVID-19.
Article in Military medicine, 2026. 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.
- Crisis-time efficiency in Eastern Poland's regional hospitals (2015-2024): a data envelopment analysis.Frontiers in health services · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDuring the COVID-19 outbreak, military personnel were deployed on an unprecedented scale to overwhelmed healthcare institutions. In the Netherlands too, military medical personnel were deployed to cope with the major patient influx. This study focuses on the civil-military cooperation at the Dutch University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU). We explore collaboration experiences and identify lessons for future collaboration. MATERIALS AND
methodsA qualitative study was conducted based on a theoretical framework consisting of network theory, literature on emergent networks, and inter-organizational theory. Data were collected from semi-structured interviews with 34 participants; both civil and military personnel. An abductive thematic analysis was guided by five themes recovered from earlier research on civil-military cooperation. An ethical review and approval for non-medical research was obtained from the Research Ethics Review Committee Faculty of Science of the VU University Amsterdam (BETCHIE 2022.038).
resultsMilitary assistance at UMCU was perceived to be essential in the COVID-19 crisis and was characterized by its prolonged duration. Day-to-day obstacles arose and were overcome, including varying levels of medical skills and organizational culture differences. Yet, the prolonged duration of the deployment had a severe impact on the collaboration. The common goal became indistinct over time and the collaboration suffered from an ambiguous crisis definition and lacked a clear exit strategy. This uncertainty caused declining motivation amongst personnel.
conclusionsMilitary medical support was highly appreciated, but crisis support lacked clearly defined phases to demarcate an end to the crisis, which also hampered the collaboration. Therefore, more attention to the different phases of the Emergency Management Cycle (EMC) is needed. Collaborative actions in the preparedness phase can familiarize partners in an early stage. Distinction between the response and recovery phase can provide transparency on the exit strategy.
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.