ArticleBMJ open2026
Availability and utility of tools to evaluate resilience of public health emergency preparedness and response in LMICs: a systematic review 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experience recurrent public health emergencies, including infectious disease outbreaks, climate-related shocks and humanitarian crises, which expose persistent weaknesses in health system preparedness and response. Although resilience-defined as the capacity of health systems to anticipate, absorb, adapt to and recover from shocks-has gained increasing attention, there is no comprehensive synthesis of tools specifically designed to evaluate the resilience of public health emergency preparedness and response (PHEPR), particularly in LMICs contexts.
objectiveTo identify, describe and critically appraise existing tools and frameworks used to evaluate PHEPR resilience, and to assess their methodological robustness, availability and applicability to LMICs health systems.
methodsThis systematic review protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement and will follow the PRISMA 2020 reporting guideline. A comprehensive search will be conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing (IRIS), Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention repositories and relevant governmental and organisational platforms. Eligible sources will include peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English between 2005 and 2025 that describe, develop, validate or apply PHEPR resilience assessment tools. Two reviewers will independently undertake screening, full-text review and data extraction using a piloted 24-item extraction form. Methodological quality of empirical studies will be appraised using appropriate Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools, while resilience assessment instruments will be evaluated using structured qualitative criteria examining their conceptual foundations, development methods, validation evidence and implementation characteristics ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required because this review will use publicly available literature. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and policy briefs to inform future development and implementation of resilience assessment tools for public health emergency preparedness and response in LMICs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251243633.
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.