首页> 外文期刊>BMC Public Health >Where is the evidence for emergency planning: a scoping review
【24h】

Where is the evidence for emergency planning: a scoping review

机译:应急计划的证据在哪里:范围界定审查

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Recent terrorist attacks and natural disasters have led to an increased awareness of the importance of emergency planning. However, the extent to which emergency planners can access or use evidence remains unclear. The aim of this study was to identify, analyse and assess the location, source and quality of emergency planning publications in the academic and UK grey literature. Methods We conducted a scoping review, using as data sources for academic literature Embase, Medline, Medline in Process, Psychinfo, Biosis, Science Citation Index, Cinahl, Cochrane library and Clinicaltrials.gov. For grey literature identification we used databases at the Health Protection Agency, NHS Evidence, British Association of Immediate Care Schemes, Emergency Planning College and the Health and Safety Executive, and the websites of UK Department of Health Emergency Planning Division and UK Resilience. Aggregative synthesis was used to analyse papers and documents against a framework based on a modified FEMA Emergency Planning cycle. Results Of 2736 titles identified from the academic literature, 1603 were relevant. 45% were from North America, 27% were commentaries or editorials and 22% were event reports. Of 192 documents from the grey literature, 97 were relevant. 76% of these were event reports. The majority of documents addressed emergency planning and response. Very few documents related to hazard analysis, mitigation or capability assessment. Conclusions Although a large body of literature exists, its validity and generalisability is unclear There is little evidence that this potential evidence base has been exploited through synthesis to inform policy and practice. The type and structure of evidence that would be of most value of emergency planners and policymakers has yet to be identified.
机译:背景技术最近的恐怖袭击和自然灾害导致人们对应急计划的重要性有了更多的认识。但是,应急计划人员能否访问或使用证据的程度仍不清楚。这项研究的目的是确定,分析和评估学术和英国灰色文献中应急计划出版物的位置,来源和质量。方法我们进行范围界定审查,使用学术文献Embase,Medline,Medline in Process,Psychinfo,Biosis,Science Citation Index,Cinahl,Cochrane图书馆和Clinicaltrials.gov作为数据源。对于灰色文献识别,我们使用了健康保护局,NHS证据,英国即时护理计划协会,紧急计划学院和健康与安全执行官以及英国卫生部紧急计划部门和英国抗灾力网站的数据库。聚合综合用于根据修改后的FEMA紧急计划周期,根据框架分析文件和文档。结果从学术文献中识别出的2736个标题中,有1603个是相关的。 45%来自北美,27%来自评论或社论,22%来自事件报道。在来自灰色文献的192篇文献中,有97篇是相关的。其中76%是事件报告。大多数文件都涉及紧急计划和响应。与危害分析,缓解或能力评估有关的文件很少。结论尽管存在大量文献,但其有效性和普遍性尚不清楚,几乎没有证据表明该潜在证据基础已通过综合利用来为政策和实践提供信息。有待确定的应急物资计划者和决策者最有价值的证据类型和结构。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号