P3A224: Pediatric Disaster Medicine Literature: A Scoping Review

Background: Pediatric disaster medicine (PDM) is a broad field describing the needs of children during the disaster cycle (preparedness, response, recovery, mitigation, and prevention) The need for high quality pediatric disaster medicine research to improve care for children is widely accepted.
However, current literature is variable in quality, content, area, and evidence. Our objectives were to conduct a scoping review of pediatric disaster medicine categorization of the current PDM literature by category and quality.

Methods: The protocol strategy used the framework for scoping reviews published by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Arksey and O’Malley methodology using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review Protocols guidelines. The multi-institutional team which included a medical librarian defined the research question, developed eligibility criteria, and identified a search strategy. We conducted a comprehensive Medline search from 20001 – 2022, which was distributed to nine reviewers. Each article was independently screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer.
Inclusion criteria parameters were: articles or studies related to all stages of the disaster cycle or disaster education; published in English; with a pediatric focus or inclusion of the pediatric population; publication in academic peer-reviewed journals or policy documents from professional pediatric societies. Included articles were reviewed regarding phases of the disaster cycle, qualitive versus quantitative, single versus multisite, retrospective versus prospective, and evidence of meta-analyses.

Results: 967 PDM articles were imported for screening and 36 duplicates were removed. 931 articles were screened for relevance and 109 were excluded (figure1). In 2000, three articles met inclusion criteria and 66 in 2021 with a sustained upward trend in the number of relevant articles published per year (figure 2). We noticed reactive spikes in the number of articles after major disasters. Most articles focused on preparedness and response, with few articles on recovery, mitigation, and prevention. Methodology used for most studies was either qualitative or retrospective. Most were single site studies and there were < 10 meta-analyses over the 20 years.

Conclusion: This scoping review describes the trends, quality, and categorization of existing pediatric disaster medicine literature over the past 20 years. By identifying the gaps in this body of literature, we can better prioritize future research endeavors.