Critical deficits in CBRNE preparedness: A nationwide assessment of Jordanian healthcare providers’ knowledge, skills, and training gaps
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the current level of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive preparedness among healthcare professionals in Jordanian hospitals. This assessment concentrated on evaluating their understanding of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive policies, self-reported proficiency in using personal protective equipment, the extent of their training, and their perceived preparedness in various chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive areas. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 298 healthcare providers from 5 Jordanian hospitals evaluated chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive policy awareness, personal protective equipment competency, and training levels. Hospital preparedness was assessed via roundtable discussions with 30 representatives (emergency physicians, infection control specialists, etc.) using the validated Canadian Center for Emergency Preparedness survey. Results: The findings showed that 59.1% of healthcare providers reported no hospital chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive policy, with only 21.1% having access to it. Competency decreased with personal protective equipment complexity, and most lacked decontamination training (68.5%) and chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive drills (76.8%). Biological preparedness was rated highest (59%), while chemical and radiological preparedness were inadequate (30% and 21%). Trained healthcare providers had significantly higher preparedness levels ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: Critical gaps in policy awareness, personal protective equipment skills, and multidimensional preparedness highlight systemic vulnerabilities. Mandatory training, policy standardization, and resource allocation are urgently needed to strengthen Jordan’s chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and explosive response capacity.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".