ReviewHealth promotion perspectives2025
Clinical decision-making frameworks for pandemic preparedness and response: A scoping review.
Review in Health promotion perspectives, 2025. 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
Background: Pandemic management demands a multifaceted strategy that integrates disease transmission control, resource allocation, and effective public health interventions. This study explores how combining clinical decision-making frameworks (CDMFs) can improve decision-making and adaptive strategies during public health emergencies. The goal is to provide a synergistic approach that enhances the speed, effectiveness, and equity of pandemic responses. Methods: We conducted a review of literature published up to January 2025 to evaluate the contributions and limitations of these frameworks in pandemic preparedness and response. The review emphasizes how each framework supports adaptability, risk identification, and strategic planning, while also addressing challenges related to equity and data quality. Results: The SOAR framework fosters adaptability and creativity, while risk assessment provides a systematic method for threat identification and mitigation. Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven decision support system (DSS) leverage machine learning and predictive analytics to provide immediate insights and improve strategic planning, although issues of data quality and equity must be addressed. The DECIDE framework ensures comprehensive decision-making, balancing strategic planning with the urgency of a crisis. The review highlights the potential of AI to improve decision-making efficiency, while underscoring the need for careful oversight to maintain transparency and prevent the perpetuation of health inequalities. Conclusion: Integrating AI into CDMFs offers significant opportunities to improve future pandemic responses. Evolving these frameworks and incorporating AI-DSS, while carefully addressing ethical considerations and data quality, will lead to more scientifically sound, practical, and equitable solutions to global health problems, enhancing overall pandemic preparedness and resilience.
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.