Background: Providing complex care and support for people with technology dependence (PwTD) is challenging, even under routine conditions. During disasters, when health and power infrastructure are disrupted, the complex care of PwTD must be maintained under extreme conditions. This research aims to summarize the specific needs of PwTD in disasters and to describe how these needs are addressed in real-life events. Methods: We conducted a scoping review, searching four databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, SocINDEX) and the websites of relevant disaster relief organizations. A total of 43 of 2625 screened records were included. Content analysis was used to identify and cluster the needs of PwTD and the response to these needs. Results: Case reports were the most reported types of literature. It was repeatedly stated that PwTD have complex care needs that are often difficult to meet in disaster situations. The review identified three interdependent clusters of needs: clinical and supportive care needs, aids and supply needs, and access needs. The needs of patients and relatives were, as far as the situation allowed, met in accordance with existing plans and guidelines and, where these were found to be inadequate, through creative solutions devised by frontline nurses. Conclusions: We conclude that addressing the complex care needs of PwTD in disasters requires a strategy integrating structural preparedness, professional adaptability, and user participation. Nurses could play a key role in developing and implementing such strategies. This review provides a starting point to develop a more practice-oriented research agenda to achieve inclusive disaster risk management.

Background: The Disaster Preparedness Evaluation Tool (DPET) with 47 items was developed to assess the disaster preparedness level among nurses in the USA. Aim: This study aimed (1) to adapt and validate the DPET for the nursing context in Germany and (2) to perform its psychometric evaluation. Methods: The DPET items were translated to German (DPET-GER). Adaptation was performed to identify irrelevant items and content validity was estimated using the scale-level content validity index (S-CVI) based on expert ratings. Psychometric evaluation was performed based on data from an online survey of 317 nurses. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) and factor structure were assessed with an exploratory factor analysis. Results: Ten items were unanimously rated as irrelevant by four experts and removed. Based on ratings by further seven experts, the content validity of DPET-GER was low for all 37 items (S-CVI of 0.53) or moderate for 19 items rated as relevant (S-CVI of 0.74). The internal consistency of DPET-GER was high (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.94) and 37 items were reduced to five factors that explain 55% of variance in all items. Conclusions: The DPET-GER has acceptable psychometric properties (internal consistency and factor structure). However, low content validity indicates that further adaptation of the DPET-GER is required before it could be used to assess disaster preparedness among nurses in Germany. More research is also needed to contextualize the construct of disaster preparedness.

Background: The ability of nurses to act competently in disasters is increasingly important, considering the rising disaster events. Self-assessment instruments are used for an evaluation of disaster nursing competencies, yet their scientific rigor has not been systematically evaluated. This review aims to identify self-assessment instruments for disaster nursing competencies based on the International Council of Nurses’ framework and to evaluate their psychometric properties to determine a validated gold standard measurement instrument. Methods: This review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024590462). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved nurses, used a self-assessment instrument targeting disaster nursing competencies, and reported psychometric evaluations. Exclusion criteria were studies involving other professionals, lacking an all-hazards approach, psychometrics, or using external assessment instruments. A comprehensive search of seven databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SocINDEX, and ERIC) was conducted up to August 2025 and complemented by reference list screening. Risk of bias assessment, evaluation of measurement properties, and evidence synthesis followed the COSMIN guidelines. A modified GRADE system was used to rate the certainty of the evidence. Results: Of 758 screened records, eight studies evaluating eight instruments met the inclusion criteria. All instruments revealed conceptual and methodological limitations. Internal consistency was rated sufficient in all studies: quality of evidence “high”; structural validity and reliability were sufficient in seven studies: quality of evidence “very low” to “high”. Content validity: quality of evidence “very low” to “moderate”, construct validity: quality of evidence “high”, and cross-cultural validity: quality of evidence “very low” were sufficiently demonstrated in two, two, and one study, respectively. Criterion validity, measurement error, and responsiveness were not evaluated in any study. Conclusions: As no instrument met all the requirements for measurement properties, it was not possible to give an unreserved recommendation. Future work should refine existing tools or develop a new, theory-driven instrument aligned with COSMIN, consistently incorporating the ICN framework and ensuring feasibility, transparency, and accessibility.