ArticleBMC nursing2025
Navigating the chaos: a scoping review of gaps in disaster nursing and a roadmap for the future.
Article in BMC nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Temporal Trends and Geographic Clustering of U.S. Weather-Related Disasters (1989-2019): A Foundational Baseline for Healthcare Preparedness.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Reframing disaster simulation as a translational systems intervention: a design-based comparative analysis of MRMI and the Emergo Train System (ETS).BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Fundamentals of Care in a 1997 Azorean Disaster: A Multiple-Case Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe increasing frequency and complexity of global disasters demand a highly competent and resilient nursing workforce. While nurses are essential across all phases of disaster management, the specialty of disaster nursing faces systemic challenges that undermine its effectiveness. This scoping review synthesizes academic literature to identify and address critical gaps within the field.
methodA structured scoping review methodology was employed, analyzing peer-reviewed articles to identify recurring themes and deficiencies. RESULTS AND
findingsThe findings highlight significant shortcomings in five key areas: (1) inadequate and inconsistent education and training; (2) ambiguous roles, responsibilities, and scopes of practice; (3) the profound and often unaddressed psychological toll on nurses; (4) nascent evidence base due to a lack of robust research; and (5) systemic logistical and organizational barriers. These gaps compromise patient outcomes, responder safety, and the overall resilience of the healthcare system in crises.
conclusionBased on this analysis, a series of evidence-informed recommendations are proposed to advance the specialty. These include developing a standardized educational framework, formalizing disaster nursing roles through policy and credentialing, integrating comprehensive mental health support systems, promoting a targeted research agenda, and strengthening interprofessional collaboration with nurses in leadership roles. Addressing these critical areas is paramount to building a sustainable and effective disaster nursing workforce capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.