ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Barriers to action: behavioral determinants of bystander intervention in medical emergencies - a scoping review.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBystander intervention at the scene of illness or injury can significantly impact the outcomes of emergencies. This scoping review aims to identify the determinants of bystander behavior in such scenarios.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar, CINAHL, and grey literature, resulting in 3957 studies. After removing duplicates, 2499 studies were screened for titles and abstracts by two independent reviewers, with conflicts resolved by a third reviewer. A total of 257 articles were then subjected to full-text screening, leading to the inclusion of 42 studies for data extraction. Data were collected on various factors, including the type of emergency, region, area of study, setting, age group, gender, prior training, presence of bystander intervention, and determinants of behavior.
resultsIn studies presenting age‑stratified analyses, bystander intervention was reported in 75% of studies involving individuals aged ≤ 18 years and in 69% of studies focused on adults. Where training status was reported, 18% of adult‑oriented studies indicated prior training, with no such reporting among studies involving individuals ≤ 18 years. Cardiac arrest was the most common type of emergency (95%). Most studies were conducted in community settings (76%), with the remainder in institutional settings (24%). Negative determinants included lack of knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy, with variations between community and institutional settings. Motivators for intervention, though less frequently reported, included young age, education/training, and a supportive environment.
conclusionThe review highlights key barriers and motivators for bystander intervention, emphasizing the need for targeted education and training programs, as well as supportive environments to enhance bystander response in emergencies. These findings provide a foundation for developing multifaceted strategies to improve bystander behavior and emergency outcomes.
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.