Disaster psychological preparedness among healthcare workers: a scoping review

As first responders in disaster response, healthcare workers’ disaster psychological preparedness is essential for both rescue effectiveness and their own mental health. However, this topic has received limited attention, and a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence is still lacking. This scoping review followed Arksey and O’Malley’s framework. A systematic search of 11 electronic databases was conducted from inception to January 13, 2026. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using appropriate standardized appraisal tools. This scoping review has been registered on the Open Science Framework (OSF; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YUT2V ). Nine studies were included (seven cross-sectional studies, one cohort study, and one quasi-experimental controlled study). The findings indicate that healthcare workers’ disaster psychological preparedness is generally moderate, with some studies reporting relatively high levels. Assessment tools mainly included self-developed questionnaires and the Psychological Preparedness for Disaster Threats Scale (PPDTS). Factors associated with disaster psychological preparedness were identified across four domains: (1) demographic and occupational characteristics, (2) individual psychological resources and states, (3) disaster training and exposure, and (4) organizational and system-level factors. One quasi-experimental study reported a statistically significant improvement following modified psychological first aid (PFA) training. Despite increasing disaster risks, healthcare workers’ disaster psychological preparedness generally remains at a moderate level, with important gaps in their ability to meet the psychological demands of complex disaster response. Preparedness is influenced by multiple individual, training-related, and organizational factors. The lack of standardized assessment tools limits the comparability and applicability of existing findings. Although PFA-based interventions show promise, more high-quality, multi-center studies are needed to further validate their effectiveness and to inform the development of targeted intervention strategies.