ArticleBMC emergency medicine2026
Evaluating the effectiveness and utilization of the primary emergency care training in Nepal: a longitudinal mixed methods study.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency care is essential for the management of the growing burden of disease and traffic injuries in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). In Nepal, nearly one in ten deaths in 2017 were attributed to injury. The Primary Emergency Care (PEC) training package of 6 days duration was developed to equip the various health care cadres with knowledge and skills to deliver emergency response. The study evaluates the effectiveness of the training, skill utilization, and the significance of an enabling work environment on application of acquired knowledge and skills.
methodsA mixed-methods evaluation was conducted using the four-level Kirkpatrick Model (KM) to assess the PEC training. Participant details and training scores were obtained from training records of 295 training graduates for level one results. Pre/post-knowledge tests were compared using paired t-tests. Eleven health facilities were purposively selected for follow up, assessing 48 PEC graduates via knowledge assessments, structured clinical skills assessments, and simulations. Qualitative data were collected via 19 in-depth interviews, 10 key informant interviews with hospital leadership, and 11 focus group discussions (FGDs) with non-PEC-trained staff. These qualitative data were thematically analyzed using Ms-excel.
resultsThere was a significant 35.9% ± 17.3% increase in knowledge after the PEC training (p = 0.001), with a significant 7.2% ± 12.9% decline at study follow up (p = 0.001), although there was no significant difference by length of time since the training (p = 0.652). Paramedics showed the greatest loss in knowledge compared to other health cadres (p = 0.005). Trainees reported increased confidence, and workplace observations indicated a positive "ripple effect" of peer-to-peer knowledge sharing among PEC and non-PEC staff.
conclusionsThe PEC training significantly improved knowledge and skills with evidence of sustained knowledge retention although a modest but significant decline was observed over time along with evidence of workplace application of skills. Limitations existed in measuring patient level outcomes as per the KM, positive spillover effects along with an enabling environment were reported in emergency departments as result of the training. The training is a feasible, low-cost approach to strengthening emergency care in resource-limited settings like Nepal.
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.