Global assessment of military and civilian trauma systems integration: a scoping review

• Published in: International journal of surgery (London, England) Vol. 110; no. 6; pp. 3617 - 3632
• Main Authors: Baird, Michael D., Madha, Emad S., Arnaouti, Matthew, Cahill, Gabrielle L., Hewa Kodikarage, Sadeesh N., Harris, Rachel E., Murphy, Timothy P., Bartel, Megan C., Rich, Elizabeth L., Pathirana, Yasar G., Kim, Eungjae, Bain, Paul A., Alswaiti, Ghassan T., Ratnayake, Amila S., Worlton, Tamara J., Joseph, Michelle N.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hagerstown, MD Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 01.06.2024
• Subjects: Reviews
• ISSN: 1743-9159; 1743-9191; 1743-9159
• DOI: 10.1097/JS9.0000000000001265

Background: The global burden of trauma disproportionately affects low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), with variability in trauma systems between countries. Military and civilian healthcare systems have a shared interest in building trauma capacity for use during peace and war. However, in LMICs it is largely unknown if and how these entities work together. Understanding the successful integration of these systems can inform partnerships that can strengthen trauma care. This scoping review aims to identify examples of military-civilian trauma systems integration and describe the methods, domains, and indicators associated with integration including barriers and facilitators. Methods: A scoping review of all appropriate databases was performed to identify papers with evidence of military and civilian trauma systems integration. After manuscripts were selected for inclusion, relevant data was extracted and coded into methods of integration, domains of integration, and collected information regarding indicators of integration, which were further categorized into facilitators or barriers. Results: 74 studies were included with authors from 18 countries describing experiences in 23 countries. There was a predominance of authorship and experiences from High Income Countries (91.9% and 75.7%, respectively). Five key domains of integration were identified; Academic Integration was the most common (45.9%). Among indicators, the most common facilitator was administrative support and the lack of this was the most common barrier. The most common method of integration was Collaboration (50%). Conclusion: Current evidence demonstrates the existence of military and civilian trauma systems integration in several countries. High-income country data dominates the literature, and thus a more robust understanding of trauma systems integration, inclusive of all geographic locations and income statuses, is necessary prior to development of a framework to guide integration. Nonetheless, the facilitators identified in this study describe the factors and environment in which integration is feasible and highlight optimal indicators of entry.