ReviewJournal of disaster science and management2025
From design to decision-making: emergency manager participation in the development of coastal storm decision support tools.
Review in Journal of disaster science and management, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Computer-based decision support tools (DSTs) are indispensable to emergency managers (EMs). Despite their proliferation in recent years, there is a persistent disconnect between the tools developed and their use. Developing tools with end-users has been recommended to ensure they have practical relevance and achieve widespread adoption and utilization. While existing work has primarily focused on DST development, end-user engagement in DST development and implementation has received less attention. In this paper, we review the existing literature on coastal storm DST development to determine whether and how researchers are engaging EMs in the development of DSTs and their reporting on the outcomes of these efforts. Methods: We conducted a literature review of coastal storm DST development, looking for mentions of EM engagement. Our search identified 286 articles, and the review was conducted on 65 of the articles that mentioned a DST, of which six explicitly mentioned engaging EMs in development. Results: Of the 286 articles we identified, only six articles explicitly report engaging EMs in tool development, suggesting low levels of engagement. We found limited reporting on the outcomes of these efforts. We identified four approaches from the six articles reviewed: (1) conduct a needs identify emergency managers' needs to guide the development; (2) from a collaborative team to engage emergency managers in tool development; (3) host workshops and training exercises with emergency managers using the tool to solicit feedback; and (4) use an iterative design approach to incorporate EM feedback into the tool. Conclusion: Findings of our review reveal low levels of EM engagement reported in existing literature, which may reflect a disconnect between the tools being developed and their use by EMs. We also found limited reporting on the outcomes of these efforts, suggesting that most DSTs have yet to achieve mainstream use. Recommendations for research and practice include (1) increased reporting on the engagement of EM in DST development; (2) an assessment of the barriers related to DST development and implementation for both tool developers and EMs; (3) longitudinal studies or case studies of DST development and implementation; and (4) the creation of a standardized approach or set of best practices for DST development and implementation to increase their success.
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.