Abstract
AbstractIntroduction and Objective:Scientific reporting on major incidents, mass-casualty incidents (MCIs), and disasters is challenging and made difficult by the nature of the medical response. Many obstacles might explain why there are few and primarily non-heterogenous published articles available. This study examines the process of scientific reporting through first-hand experiences from authors of published reports. It aims to identify learning points and challenges that are important to address to mitigate and improve scientific reporting after major incidents.Methods:This was a qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected based on a comprehensive literature search. Ten researchers, who had published reports on major incidents, MCIs, or disasters from 2013-2018 were included, of both genders, from eight countries on three continents. The researchers reported on large fires, terrorist attacks, shootings, complex road accidents, transportation accidents, and earthquakes.Results:The interview was themed around initiation, workload, data collection, guidelines/templates, and motivation factors for reporting. The most challenging aspects of the reporting process proved to be a lack of dedicated time, difficulties concerning data collection, and structuring the report. Most researchers had no prior experience in reporting on major incidents. Guidelines and templates were often chosen based on how easily accessible and user-friendly they were.Conclusion and Relevance:There are few articles presenting first-hand experience from the process of scientific reporting on major incidents, MCIs, and disasters. This study presents motivation factors, challenges during reporting, and factors that affected the researchers’ choice of reporting tools such as guidelines and templates. This study shows that the structural tools available for gathering data and writing scientific reports need to be more widely promoted to improve systematic reporting in Emergency and Disaster Medicine. Through gathering, comparing, and analyzing data, knowledge can be acquired to strengthen and improve responses to future major incidents. This study indicates that transparency and willingness to share information are requisite for forming a successful scientific report.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Emergency,Emergency Medicine
Reference45 articles.
1. Literature Review on Medical Incident Command
2. 37. Accident Reports. Washington DC, USA. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AccidentReports.aspx. Accessed February 23, 2018.
3. 29. Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). Brussels, Belgium. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters - CRED. https://www.emdat.be/. Accessed February 24, 2018.
4. Qualitative Research in Emergency Care Part I: Research Principles and Common Applications
5. Systematic text condensation: A strategy for qualitative analysis
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献