ArticleMilitary medicine2026
Assessing the Role of Military Units in Epidemic Response: A Scoping Review of Key Issues.
Article in Military medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMilitary forces have long supported epidemic and pandemic response, offering rapid mobilization, logistics, and operational capacity in challenging environments. Their roles-from building treatment centers and transporting supplies to enforcing quarantines-were especially visible during the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak and the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite abundant case-specific literature, no broad synthesis has examined operational contributions, ethical dilemmas, coordination mechanisms, and long-term effects on health systems.
methodsFollowing Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, we conducted a scoping review across PubMed, Scopus, Journal Storage (JSTOR), the WHO Library (WHOLIS), Military Health System publications and Google Scholar, including studies up to December 2024. Eligible sources described military involvement in epidemic or pandemic responses and included peer-reviewed articles, reports, and case studies. Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies, extracting data on context, epidemic type, military role, coordination, and outcomes. Thematic analysis grouped findings into 4 domains: logistics and rapid deployment, ethical considerations and human rights, civil-military coordination, and long-term implications for health systems and governance.
resultsOf 5,000 records identified, 100 met inclusion criteria. Most addressed Ebola or COVID-19, with geographic coverage spanning West Africa, Southeast Asia, and high-income countries. Militaries excelled in logistics-airlifting supplies, building facilities, and restoring disrupted supply chains. Ethical tensions arose in enforcement roles, where measures sometimes undermined public trust. Coordination quality varied, with integrated command structures improving efficiency. Long-term impacts were inconsistently reported, with benefits such as infrastructure transfer alongside risks of civilian dependency. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Pre-established civil-military frameworks, ethical safeguards and community engagement are key to maximizing benefits and mitigating risks. Military roles should be framed as surge capacity with planned transition to civilian control.
conclusionsMilitary forces are valuable epidemic partners but require strategic integration, ethical oversight and focus on strengthening civilian systems. Standardized evaluation frameworks are needed to measure short- and long-term impacts.
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.