ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Training Nurses for Disasters: A Systematic Review on Self-Efficacy and Preparedness.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Relationship Between Nurses' Perceptions of Disaster Preparedness and Psychological Preparedness: A Cross-Sectional Study.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Impact of Gamified Teaching on Undergraduate Nursing Students' Disaster Nursing Competence, Self-Efficacy, and Self-Directed Learning Ability: Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- Disaster preparedness knowledge and experiences among nurses during a competitive tabletop exercise program.Frontiers in 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rising frequency and complexity of disasters underscores the urgent need for robust preparedness in healthcare. Nurses and nursing students, as key frontline responders, often lack sufficient training to respond effectively to emergencies and recovery efforts.
aimThis review evaluates the effectiveness of disaster preparedness training in terms of nurses' and nursing students' self-efficacy in providing disaster care and determines which training approaches are most effective.
methodA systematic review was conducted of peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2014 and 2025 across Medline, PubMed, ProQuest, and Health & Medical Col. Search terms included nurses, nursing students, self-efficacy, disaster training, emergency preparedness, training, simulation and scenario-based learning.
resultsNineteen peer-reviewed studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, disaster preparedness training was found to enhance nurses' and nursing students' self-efficacy, knowledge and skills, with simulation-based and scenario-driven approaches producing the most consistent gains. These methods provided realistic and immersive experiences that fostered confidence and strengthened preparedness. Traditional lectures and workshops also improved outcomes but were generally less effective in sustaining self-efficacy over time. Reported challenges included limited faculty expertise, insufficient institutional support, and psychological barriers that may reduce engagement and impact.
conclusionIntegrating disaster preparedness into nursing curricula and professional training is vital for strengthening nurses' and nursing students' self-efficacy in crisis response. Evidence shows that simulation-based education, particularly when combined with traditional approaches, is especially effective in building knowledge and skills. Embedding these methods into training frameworks offers a sustainable strategy to ensure a more competent and resilient nursing workforce.
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.