Disaster Research and Evaluation Frameworks-RETRACTED

A Qualitative Study on Researchers' Experiences after Publishing Scientific Reports on Major Incidents, Mass-Casualty Incidents, and Disasters

INTRODUCTION 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.

Experience With a Novel, Global, Open-Access Template for Major Incidents: Qualitative Feasibility Study

OBJECTIVE

The transfer of experiences gained after prehospital medical responses to major incidents has largely been nonsystematic, and better-structured reporting methods have been advocated. A consensus-based template was recently created and implemented as an open-access website. This qualitative study assessed the feasibility of using the template and reporting site.

METHODS

Informants who had used or who had been asked to use the template were interviewed. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim, and the transcripts were analyzed by using an inductive approach based on grounded theory methodology.

RESULTS

The major theme identified was a need for "defining purpose" as explained by the minor themes "relevance," "scope," "resources," and "usefulness." Informants reported that the template content needed to be revised and that the scope and rationale behind each question should be conveyed to the user. Resources necessary for reporting and clarity regarding the aim and outcome also need to be communicated to users and policy-makers. The interface between informants and the template is critical.

CONCLUSIONS

Informants considered the template and website useful but reported that the workload exceeded their expectations. Despite pilot testing of the template before implementation, early revision of the template is recommended. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;11:403-406).