Journal Home
Search for

Volume 37, Issue 2, Pages 150-156 (August 2009)


View previous. 11 of 13 View next.

Public Health Systems Research in Emergency Preparedness: A Review of the Literature

Elena Savoia, MD, MPHaCorresponding Author Informationemail address, Sarah B. Massin-Short, MPHa, Angie Mae Rodday, MSCb, Lisa A. Aaron, MSCb, Melissa A. Higdon, BSc, Michael A. Stoto, PhDac

published online 15 June 2009.

Background

Despite the acknowledged promise of developing a public health systems research (PHSR) agenda for emergency preparedness, there has been no systematic review of the literature in this area. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review in order to identify and characterize the PHSR literature produced in the U.S. in the past 11 years in the field of public health emergency preparedness.

Evidence acquisition

Articles were searched in MEDLINE and EMBASE, as well as in the gray literature. Two independent reviewers classified the articles according to study design and IOM public health emergency preparedness (PHEP) research goal areas.

Evidence synthesis

From January 1, 1997, through December 31, 2008, there were 547 articles that met the inclusion criteria that were published. It was possible to classify 314 (57%) articles into at least one of the four IOM PHEP research goal areas. Of these, 61 (11%) addressed Research Area 1 (usefulness of training); 39 (7%) addressed Research Area 2 (communications in preparedness and response); 193 (35%) addressed Research Area 3 (sustainable preparedness and response systems); and 39 (7%) addressed Research Area 4 (criteria and metrics to measure effectiveness and efficiency). Twenty-one studies (4%) could be classified into more than one category. The majority of the articles (81%), including commentaries/reviews and case studies, were based on qualitative analysis. Commentaries/review articles were the most common study types (62%).

Conclusions

Since 2001, the PHSR literature on PHEP issues has grown at about 33% per year. However, most studies lack a rigorous design, raising questions about the validity of the results.

a Center for Public Health Preparedness, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

b Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts

c Department of Health Systems Administration, Georgetown University, Washington, DC

Corresponding Author InformationAddress correspondence and reprint requests to: Elena Savoia, MD, MPH, Harvard School of Public Health, Center for Public Health Preparedness, Division of Public Health Practice, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston MA 02115

PII: S0749-3797(09)00305-5

doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.03.023


View previous. 11 of 13 View next.