You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Emergency and disaster management training; knowledge and attitude of Yemeni health professionals- a cross-sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12873-018-0174-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Waheeb Nasr Naser, Huda Ba Saleem |
| Abstract |
Medical professionals together with other first responder teams are the first to attend an emergency or disaster. Knowledge and training in emergency and disaster preparedness are important in responding effectively. This study aims to assess the current knowledge, attitude and training in emergency and disaster preparedness among Yemeni health professionals. A descriptive, cross-sectional, non-probability based study was conducted in Yemen using self-reported on-line and paper surveys in 2017. A total of 531 health professionals responded. The Chi-Square test was used to identify any significant difference in the knowledge and attitude of the professional categories. The p-value of <0.05 was used as a statistical significant. The overall knowledge status of Yemeni health professionals was insufficient with regards to emergency and disaster preparedness. Of all respondents, 32.0% had good knowledge, 53.5% had fair and 14.5% exhibited poor knowledge. The educational level was a key factor in the knowledge gap amongst respondents. Regardless of the period of experience, postgraduate staff were more knowledgeable than graduates. Physicians were better in knowledge than other subgroups of health specialties. Health administrators seemed insufficiently qualified in emergency and disaster planning. Medical teachers performed better in responding to knowledge test than managers. However, the majority of study respondents appeared in the 'positive attitudes' level to emergency and disaster preparedness. 41.0% of all respondents had received no courses in disaster preparedness. The trained staff used NGOs, and online-related programs more frequently for learning disaster planning (15.7%, and 13.6%) respectively. In contrast, formal resources such as MoPHP, health facility, medical schooling programs were used by (10.2%, 9.6, and 7.3%) of respondents, respectively. 58.9% of respondents had not participated in any exercise in emergency and disaster preparedness. Of all respondents, triage and mass causality response exercises were attended by only (13.5%, and 9.7%) respectively. The absence of teaching programs is a major issue in the lack of knowledge of health professionals regarding disaster preparedness. Thus, emergency and disaster preparedness has to be included in the primary medical school curricula and continuing medical education programs of the health facilities. Long-term formal training such as undergraduate and postgraduate programs is necessary. Operational simulations enrolled key personnel of multi-agencies focus on an organizational training rather than individual based training are recommended. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 33% |
| Qatar | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 287 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 287 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 42 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 30 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 20 | 7% |
| Researcher | 17 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 14% |
| Unknown | 124 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 55 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 43 | 15% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 9 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 9 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 34 | 12% |
| Unknown | 130 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2018.
All research outputs
#13,392,150
of 23,308,124 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#380
of 769 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,730
of 331,229 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,308,124 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 769 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,229 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.