PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced

 
Logo of bmcphBioMed Centralsearchsubmit a manuscriptregisterthis articleBMC Public Health
 
BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 542.
Published online Jul 23, 2012. doi:  10.1186/1471-2458-12-542
PMCID: PMC3438123
Where is the evidence for emergency planning: a scoping review
Kirsty Challen,corresponding author1 Andrew CK Lee,1 Andrew Booth,1 Paolo Gardois,1 Helen Buckley Woods,1 and Steve W Goodacre1
1ScHARR, Regent Court, Sheffield, S1 4DA, UK
corresponding authorCorresponding author.
Kirsty Challen: kirstychallen/at/hotmail.com; Andrew CK Lee: Andrew.lee/at/sheffield.ac.uk; Andrew Booth: a.booth/at/sheffield.ac.uk; Paolo Gardois: pgardois/at/gmail.com; Helen Buckley Woods: h.b.woods/at/sheffield.ac.uk; Steve W Goodacre: s.goodacre/at/sheffield.ac.uk
Received March 20, 2012; Accepted July 23, 2012.
Abstract
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.
Keywords: Emergency planning, Disaster, Major incident
Articles from BMC Public Health are provided here courtesy of
BioMed Central