ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Assessing healthcare professional wellness during natural and man-made mass casualty incidents: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in public 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Mass Casualty Incidents (MCIs) represent a unique challenge to both healthcare systems and staff, however, limited quantitative research exists to describe the variable impact of natural and manmade MCIs on healthcare professional wellness (HCPW) measures. Study objective: To compare resilience, burnout and secondary traumatic stress (STS) outcomes between health care professional (HCP) respondents during the Covid-19 (C-19) pandemic and post October 7th War (MM23). We considered factors such as direct patient contact (DPC) and the role of non-clinical activities and previous experiences on HCPW measures. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional survey-based study. Continuous variables were summarized as means and standard deviations with analysis including Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Categorical variables were assessed via Chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Results: We found no statistically significant difference in resilience between the cohorts (C-19 7.17 vs. MM23 7.01, Conclusion: In our retrospective study we found no difference in rates of HCP resilience but did find variable differences in rates of burnout and STS based on the type of MCI. An analysis, considering the association between DPC and HCPW metrics, demonstrated significant differences in the rates of resilience, burnout and STS between the two cohorts. Furthermore, subgroup analysis demonstrated that factors such as non-clinical military service, volunteerism, previous MCI experience and a history of prior military service were all associated with higher levels of respondent resilience during a manmade MCI. These findings demonstrate that differences in HCPW experiences may exist between varying types of MCIs, and that some individual-based, and interpersonal, variables may be associated with differing rates of impact.
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.