ArticleConflict and health2026
Consensus on key domains for emergency medical teams deployment evaluation: a Delphi method study.
Article in Conflict and health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency Medical Teams (EMT) deploy to provide urgent care during and after sudden onset disasters. Although the World Health Organisation has set standards for EMTs on training, personnel, and operations, there is presently no standardised evaluation framework to assess deployments.
methodsAs a step towards creation of an EMT deployment evaluation framework with an agreed upon common set of criteria, we used a two-round modified Delphi method to elicit perspectives from key stakeholders, including EMT members, researchers, funders, representatives of deploying governments, and host organisations. We asked participants to rate themes and questions relevant to EMT evaluation, derived from a previous study, using a four-point Likert scale, with consensus considered reached when 75% or more respondents rated the themes or questions 'slightly suitable' or 'highly suitable'.
resultsTwo rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 15 and 16 participants, respectively, with all first-round participants plus an additional person participating in the second round. Participants reached consensus on all 23 proposed themes and 162 of 165 (98%) proposed questions, with near unanimous views on many: 17 themes and 55 questions reached 100% consensus.
conclusionsBased on the consensus findings and guided by the pillar themes and questions outlined in the World Health Organization's After Action Review guidance, we proposed a preliminary structure for an EMT evaluation. These findings can serve as a foundation to inform the future design of a standardised evaluation framework. Further refinement through iterative testing and stakeholder consultation will enhance the framework's practicality and adaptability.
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.