Where is the evidence for emergency planning: a scoping review

BMC Public Health

Steve W Goodacre¹  Helen Buckley Woods¹  Paolo Gardois¹  Andrew Booth¹  Andrew CK Lee¹  Kirsty Challen¹ 

[1] ScHARR, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK

关键词: Major incident;    Disaster;    Emergency planning;   

Others  :  1163433
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-12-542

 received in 2012-03-20, accepted in 2012-07-23,  发布年份 2012

【 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.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Challen et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Civil Contingencies Secretariat:Responding to Emergencies. Cabinet Office, London; 2005.
• [2]Department of Health:The NHS Emergency Planning Guidance. Department of Health, London; 2005.
• [3]Department of Health:Mass Casualties Incidents: A Framework for Planning . Department of Health, London; 2007.
• [4]Lady Justice H: Coroner's Inquests into the London Bombings of 7 July 2005: Report under Rule 43. HM Coroner, London; 2011.
• [5]Asaeda G: The day that the START triage system came to a STOP: observations from the World Trade Center disaster. Acad Emerg Med 2002, 9(3):255-256.
• [6]Emergency Preparedness. HM Government, York; 2005.
• [7]Papaioannou D, Sutton A: Searching the literature. In Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. Edited by Booth A, Papaioannou D, Sutton A. Sage, London; 2011:72-74.
• [8]Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, Shaw RL, Smith JA, Young B: How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res 2006, 6:27-44.
• [9]McLoughlin D: A Framework for Integrated Emergency Management. Public Adm Rev 1985, 45:165-172.
• [10]Carroll C, Booth A, Cooper K: A worked example of "best fit" framework synthesis: A systematic review of views concerning the taking of some potential chemopreventive agents. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:29. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database. UniversitéCatholique de Louvain, Brussels; 2011. [www.emdat.be] webcite, accessed 15 Sep
• [12]OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group:The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford; 2011.
• [13]Rodgers M, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Roberts H, Britten N: Testing Methodological Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Smoke Alarm Ownership and Function. Evaluation 2009, 15:49-74.
• [14]Carley S, Mackway-Jones K, Donnan S: Major incidents in Britain over the past 28 years: the case for the centralised reporting of major incidents. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998, 52(6):392-398.
• [15]World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine:Health Disaster Management: Guidelines for Evaluation and Research in the "Utstein style". Chapter 1:introduction Prehosp Disaster Med 2002, 17(Suppl 3):1-24.