ArticleBMJ open2026
Integrating orthotic and prosthetic solutions into disaster risk management: a multimethod study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDisasters often cause large numbers of injuries, including fractures, lacerations and amputations, which overwhelm emergency services. Orthotic and prosthetic solutions can provide timely primary care, reduce the need for surgery and prevent complications. A structured framework for preparedness and response is required to integrate these solutions into disaster risk management. This study aims to develop such a framework to enhance rehabilitation and reduce secondary injuries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multimethod protocol comprises three phases. First, a systematic scoping review will be conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-Systematic Scoping review (ScR) guidelines to identify evidence on orthotic and prosthetic integration across disaster management stages. Second, qualitative content analysis will be performed through semistructured interviews with healthcare providers, policy makers and service organisations to capture perspectives on practical application. The interview data will be analysed using conventional content analysis. The rigour and trustworthiness of the findings will be evaluated using the criteria proposed by Lincoln and Guba and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist. Third, the Delphi method will be used to refine and consolidate recommendations for strategic integration. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences (ethics code: IR.USWR.REC.1404.154). Informed consent, written or verbal as appropriate, will be obtained from all interview and Delphi participants. No patients or members of the public were involved in the design or planning of this protocol. However, in future research phases, we plan to present the findings to individuals with disabilities who require orthotic/prosthetic devices. Their feedback on the proposed service delivery methods will be sought, and they may also be invited to contribute to the development of plain-language summaries of the results. Findings will also be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, presentations at relevant conferences and policy briefs for disaster management and rehabilitation authorities.
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.