Skip to main content

The perceived self-efficacy of senior, middle, and operations managers of the incident command system dealing with emergencies and disasters during the COVID-19 pandemic



Natural disasters, health, terrorism, infectious diseases, and social unrest affect more than 200 million people worldwide each year. The present study is an attempt to evaluate the self-efficacy of senior, middle, and operational managers of the Incident Command System (ICS) of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences in Iran.


The study examined the perceived self-efficacy of 103 senior, middle, and operational managers of the Incidence Command System (ICS) of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences in 2021. Sampling was done by census using a designed questionnaire based on Bandura’s self-efficacy concepts. Based on Factor Analysis, 4 factors were extracted. The factors were labeled and analyzed.


The number of people who had passed the crisis management course was 57. Seventy-one participants reported their participation in crisis management. The score obtained by men in Factor 3 (F3) was significantly higher than women, but not in other factors. People with stable employment scored far higher in Factor 1 (F1) than those with unsustainable employment conditions. Those who had passed the Crisis Management courses had a higher average score, but only in the three factors 1, 2, and 4, this difference was significant.


Even training the temporary staff is an organizational investment that can return benefits to the system. This enhances their perceived self-efficacy and promotes their commitment to the organization. Therefore, empowering these managers should be a priority.

Peer Review reports


Natural disasters, health-related problems, terrorist attacks, infectious diseases, and social unrest all around the world affect more than 200 million people annually. These disasters are increasing all over the world [1,2,3]. Iran is affected each year by an average of 253 risks leading to disasters of various sizes depending on their frequency, extent, and population congestion. Occasionally there may be problems with restoration [4, 5]. Events of moderate severity can also affect the national health and treatment system [6, 7]. The healthcare system plays an effective role in reducing the casualty and death toll in times of crisis. One goal that health care and treatment systems are trying to achieve in responding to incidents and disasters is to reduce and prevent deaths and physical and mental health problems. This aim can never be achieved without proper planning, preparation, and training of the workforce involved in the crisis [6, 8, 9]. Meanwhile, crisis managers are required to provide an access to organized, integrated, easily accessible, and coordinated medical services. Poor planning, inadequate resource allocation, and lack of coordination between different departments make it difficult to provide medical and healthcare services in the event of a disaster [10, 11].

After WHO announced the COVID-19 pandemic, Iran also got involved with the pandemic on February 19th, 2020. As of September 2021, more than 54 million infected people were diagnosed and over 117,000 deaths were reported in Iran [12, 13]. From the beginning of the pandemic to August 2021, the incidence of coronavirus infections in Iran was higher than the global average, and the epidemic was in four zones, including Southeast Asia, the Eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, the Western Pacific, and Africa [14]. Based on the data released in the database of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Iran, since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, Sistan and Baluchestan province in Iran experienced three peaks of illness in July 2020, November 2020, and July 2021.

Disasters are events that are likely to result in massive complications, mortality, and morbidity in addition to infrastructure damage [15]. WHO defines a disaster as a seriously dissociated performance of a society, resulting in widespread human, economic and environmental losses and negative effects, so its management is beyond the power of the affected society if it just relies on its internal resources. In disaster management, organizations encounter sudden and unexpected changes and problems over which they do not have proper control [16,17,18]. According to the published reports, 1.6 million people around the world have lost their lives due to natural disasters since 1990, accounting for about 65000 annual deaths [19].

Disasters present many challenges to managers due to their frequency and damage. Therefore, as crisis managers are under maximum stress, they need to develop special skills to make appropriate decisions in the shortest possible time so as to control disasters and reduce subsequent complications on the one hand and lead command teams on the other [17, 20]. Effective management has a paramount role in controlling crises, and coordinating and enhancing the efficacy of actions [21, 22]. Taking skillful and proper measures in difficult and unpredictable situations is the consequence of manager qualification and competency. perceived self-efficacy as a component of managers’ qualification and competency involves one’s belief in their own capabilities to achieve certain goals [23]. For Bandura, it reflects one’s beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their functioning and over events that affect their life. In fact, the perceived self-efficacy in completing a task reflects a person’s self-confidence and desire for a particular behavior [24, 25]. Relying on personal beliefs in their abilities, managers can predict future performance in dealing with disasters and crises [21, 26].

People with higher self-efficacy believe that they can have proper job performance in stressful occupational situations. They are more inclined to take precautions against problems ahead. But people with lower self-efficacy prefer avoidance strategies. Higher self-efficacy affects how people respond to work-related stressors [27]. Self-efficacy influences the outcomes because it involves one’s self-confidence in controlling thoughts, emotions, and actions. Managers’ self-efficacy in such issues as situational decision-making, evidence-based judgment, prioritization, planning, stress control, and effective communication plays an important role in crisis management because the first step in overcoming a crisis is to feel that you are competent enough to respond to it. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the perceived self-efficacy of senior, middle, and operations managers of the Incident Command System (ICS) dealing with events and disasters during the covid-19 Pandemic, in a major state university in Iran (i.e. Zahedan University of Medical Sciences) as a major responding organization against disasters and incidents during the pandemic.

Perceived self-efficacy is affected by vicarious experience, previous mastery experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological and emotional responses. Previous successful experiences as the most important factor in reinforcing the perceived self-efficacy play a paramount role in facing similar situations [24]. Yarmohammadian et al. (2013) evaluated the relationship between self-efficacy and competency of some managers during the crisis in Isfahan, Iran. They observed the managers’ desirable self-efficacy in communicating with team members and announcing the emergency conditions. However, their self-efficacy was not desirable when it came to coordinating between team members and allocating resources before the crisis, and reducing staff stress during the crisis. They found a significant positive correlation between the managers’ competency and self-efficacy [21]. Kafi et al. (2016) also examined the relationship between hardiness, resilience, and self-efficacy among the crisis managers of the Red Crescent Society in a number of provinces in Iran. They found that by believing in their abilities, managers can shape their cognition, attitude, behavior, and performance to maximize their potential and increase resilience in difficult times [28]. In a meta-analysis, Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) found a strong positive relationship between self-efficacy and job performance; they also observed that occupational complexity would tend to undermine such a relationship [29]. Also, Baas et al. (2003) studied the self-efficacy of nurses caring for patients with heart failure and found that implementing educational programs was effective in enhancing the self-efficacy and performance of nurses [30]. Jaafaripooyan et al. (2017) assessed the self-efficacy of senior hospital managers in Tehran, Iran, and found that managers had a high level of self-efficacy in facing crises. The perceived self-efficacy of male participants was higher than that of females. In addition, married managers showed better self-efficacy than single managers. Self-efficacy scores were also higher among managers with previous crisis management experience [31]. Ventura et al. (2015) examined the role of self-efficacy as a predictor of job burnout, and confirmed that higher levels of perceived self-efficacy encouraged managers to take part in challenges; also, these managers had much fewer hindrance demands in achieving their goals [32]. Wolfrum (2020) analyzed the self-efficacy of crisis leaders in the United States, and reported that the occurrence of a crisis entailed effective management abilities; also there was a positive correlation between managers’ effective leadership and self-efficacy during the crisis. However, there was no significant association between managerial self-efficacy and demographic characteristics such as education level, previous experience, and involvement in crisis management [33].


This cross-sectional and analytical study was conducted to investigate the perceived self-efficacy of 103 senior, middle, and operations managers at Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Iran in 2020–2021 in dealing with the Covid-19 disease crisis. The study population included EOC (Emergency Operations Center) senior managers, middle managers, and operations managers of in Zahedan, Iran. Overall, 140 people were predicted to participate in the study.

The senior managers, including the commanders and seniors of the university's EOC (finance and support department, planning department, medicine and equipment department, health operations department, and treatment operations department) were included in the study based on the National Response Framework (NRF).

The middle managers include the commanders and seniors of the EOC of health and treatment networks and HICS of hospitals in the covered districts based on NRF, who were included in the study as middle managers.

Operational managers include other EOC members of the district health network and HICS of hospitals who are directly involved in operations and were included in the study as operational managers.

Through a census sampling method, all Incident Command System (ICS) managers at the three levels of managers were invited to participate; however, only 103 participants completed the questionnaire.

We used the Persian version of Bandura's General Self-Efficacy Scale, the validity and reliability of which were already confirmed in a study by Jaafaripooyan [34]. However, since a number of items about managers’ awareness of NRF were added to the questionnaire, the newly-developed scale was also validated by the judgment of an expert panel of psychologists and specialists in health education and disaster health; its reliability was confirmed by Cronbach’s alpha (α = 0.89).z The questionnaire consisted of two parts: demographic information (15 items) and main body (35 items) including NRF-related duties, commandments, coordination and communication, planning, problem-solving skills, and stress and emotional control. Each statement was rated against a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “very high” to “very low”). Since there were too many items and the direct application analysis of each item could not be performed, it was necessary to extract hidden variables from the data. Therefore, factor analysis was performed to reduce the dimensions of the data. First, the feasibility of factor analysis was checked using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s tests; KMO was greater than 0.5 (KMO = 0.891) [35]; and Bartlett’s test of sphericity equaled 3335.917 (df = 3335.917, p < 0.001); it was revealed that correlation between the items was great enough to allow factor analysis. Therefore, the study data was found appropriate for factor analysis. The total variance was explained based on the screen plot where factor #4 showed the curve point, and the remaining four factors (with a total variance %66.267) accounted for the variances of all items (Fig. 1, Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Scree plot of the component number and eigenvalues of questions

Table 1 Components derived from factor analysis

In the first phase of factor analysis without rotation, most items were loaded into F1. However, Varimax rotation and re-analysis resolved the problem; 15 items with a loading higher than 0.46 loaded onto F1, 9 items with a loading higher than 0.48 loaded onto F2, 7 items with a loading higher than 0.52 loaded onto F3, and 4 items with the loading higher than 0.7 loaded onto F4 (Table 2). Based on the items and consulting professionals, the factors were labeled as follows: Factor 1 (F1): Perceived Self-efficacy in the operations commandment; Factor 2 (F2): Perceived Self-efficacy in planning and improving the technical performance of the operations teams; Factor 3 (F3): Perceived Self-efficacy in emotional control, coordination, and management; Factor 4 (F4): Perceived Self-efficacy in familiarity with the crisis management structure and tasks.

Table 2 Description of factors extracted from factor analysis

Based on the factor analysis with 35 Varimax rotations, four extracted factors included F1 accounting for 22.785% of the total variances of the items; F2 accounting for 16.945%, F3 accounting for 15.815%, and F4 accounting for 10.721% of all variances. The four extracted factors together accounted for 66.267% of the total variances (Table 1).

Regarding the participants’ responses on a Likert scale (5 for “very much” and 1 for “very little”), the range of minimum and maximum scores for each factor were as follows: 15 to 75 (F1), 9 to 45 (F2), 7 to 35 (F3) and 4 to 20 (F4), respectively. Participants’ mean, median, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum scores for each factor are summarized in Table 2.


There were 53 male (51.5%) and 50 female (48.5%) participants who were senior, middle, and operations crisis managers. Ninety-six participants (93.2%) were married and the rest were single. In terms of educational level, most (47.6%) had a bachelor's degree. Thirty-four participants (33%) had Master’s and 10 participants (9.7%) had Ph.D. degrees. As for their majors, 47 participants (45.6%) graduated from a clinical major, 36 participants (35%) from a health department, and 20 participants (19.4%) from humanities. Most of the participants (n = 75, 72.8%) were officially and permanently employed. Eighteen participants (17.5%) were recruited through temporary contracts. Five participants were hired on an annual contract (4.9%), and another five were on temporary outsourcing contracts (4.9%). They were categorized into 47 therapeutic staff (45.6%), 38 health staff (36.9%), 13 administrative finance staff (12.6%), and 5 blue-collar service providers (4.9%). Of all, 57 participants (55.3%) had already attended in-service crisis management courses. Also, 71 participants (68.9%) reported their active participation at least in one real case of crisis management; they had either experienced or managed between 1 and 10 cases of crisis management (mean = 1.36, SD = 1.84). The most frequent managerial roles included 23 health duties (22.3%), 19 therapeutic operations (18.4%), and 15 logistic administrative roles (14.6%) (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3 Demographic status
Table 4 Membership in the disaster management system

Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences between the four factors extracted from factor analysis and variables such as participants’ organizational status, their occupational classification (health, treatment, and logistics), their role in crisis management, the organizational hierarchy (university, health network, and hospital levels), marital status, educational level and major (p = 0.05). Men’s F3 scores (27.7) were significantly higher than women’s F3 scores (25.5) (p = 0.028). However, differences were not significant with other variables. Participants with permanent employment status scored higher (mean = 58.3) in F1 than those with unstable temporary employment status (mean = 44) (p = 0.001). However, there was no further significant difference between the two groups in the other three factors.

Of all, 57 participants (55.3%) had participated in 1–10 crisis management courses. Participants who had attended crisis management courses showed higher mean scores in all four factors; however, the differences were significant only for F1 (p = 0.004), F2 (p = 0.005), and F4 (p < 0.001). Also, the more courses the participants attended, the higher their scores on F1 (p = 0.005), F2 (p = 0.003), and F4 (p = 0.006) were.

Participation in previous crisis management experiences resulted in higher scores on all four factors compared to participants who did not have such experiences; however, the differences were significant only for F1 (p = 0.002) and F3 (p = 0.003). The linear regression analysis showed a significant relationship between participants’ employment history and F1 and F3 (Table 5). There was no significant association between employment history and F2 and F4.

Table 5 Linear regression for factors and history of employment (Year)

Linear regression analysis revealed a significant relationship between F1 and two other factors (i.e. F2 and F3). In addition, F2 showed a significant relationship with F1, F3, and F4. However, F3 was significantly related to F1 and F2; and F4 was significantly associated with F2 only (Table 6). No significant relationship was found with other states.

Table 6 Linear regression for factors


Organizational planning and workforce training positively correlate with the power of medical systems to manage and respond to disasters and events. In fact, organizations with highly trained workforce act more effectively by making prompt decisions, managing stress, and preventing spontaneous disruption; they also have a higher level of self-efficacy [36,37,38,39]. Perceived self-efficacy is influenced by vicarious experience or seeing people like you successfully achieve task demands, performance accomplishments, experiences of mastery, verbal persuasion as well as emotional and physiological states. As the most important reinforcement source of perceived self-efficacy, past experiences of success highly influence perceived self-efficacy in similar situations [25]. In this survey, 103 senior, middle, and operations managers (out of 140 managers) voluntarily completed the study questionnaire; they were employed in the health centers, hospitals, and crisis management headquarters of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences, Iran. It was found that 46 of the ICS managers (44.7%) had not attended any crisis management courses. In addition, 25 (35.2%) of managers with crisis management experience reported that they had never attended a crisis management course. The educational qualifications of 49 managers (47.6%) ranged from master’s degrees to medical subspecialties.

There was a significant difference in the gender effect of the senior, middle, and operations managers of the Incident Command System. Almost half of the Incident Command System (ICS) managers (48.5%) were women, reflecting an appropriate gender representation. Chi-square and Fisher’s exact test showed that 88.9% of senior managers, 66.7% of middle managers, and 46.6% of operations managers were men, reflecting a significant difference (p = 0.043). The difference means that women are given fewer opportunities to function as senior and middle managers in the Incident Control System, while more are hired as operations managers. While women have many skills and abilities, they perceive less self-efficacy because of ignorance of their own abilities and being ignored by the management system [40]. Senior managers’ confidence in women’s abilities and providing them with equal opportunities to advance to leadership and management positions can pave the way for actualizing their managerial powers and, consequently, enhance their perception of self-efficacy. A survey of governmental hospitals in Tehran, Iran, found that 59% of the participants were women [34], which is in line with the present findings.

In the present study, there was a significant difference between gender and F3. Male participants’ mean scores (27.7) were higher than that of female participants (23.6) (p = 0.028). In Wutjatmiko and colleagues’ study, while 75.5% of the participants were women, 56.2% of them perceived low self-efficacy in response to disasters [41], which is consistent with the present study findings.

There was no significant relationship between managers’ employment history and the number of crisis management courses they had taken (p = 0.766). The lack of a relationship between managers’ employment history and attending crisis management courses can be attributed to the fact that, first, crisis management courses are quite new and, second, Iran’s Health System has introduced a national disaster response program to medical universities since 2016. Of all the 103 participants, 44.7% had attended no courses in crisis management. Also, 68.9% of these managers reported their management of or participation in a case of crisis control in the past, while 25 of them (35.2%) had not attended any crisis management courses.

There was no significant difference between the four domains of self-efficacy and participants’ educational level; this finding was not consistent with that of Wutjatmiko et al. [41], and Melnikov et al. [42]. Wutjatmiko et al. found that participants with higher educational levels exhibited more information about incidents and disaster management; consequently, they were able to make precise and timely decisions in the event of a crisis [41]. One of the reasons for this difference may be that participants are not trained in crisis management. Also, disaster management courses are not included in the curriculum of the relevant university major.

The results showed that as the number of training courses increased, the values of F1 (p = 0.005), F2 (p = 0.003), and F4 (p = 0.006) significantly increased; this might be attributed to the goal-oriented nature of the courses. However, there was no significant relationship between the F3 score and these courses (p = 0.233). Jonson et al. showed that the lack of training courses lowered the participants’ self-efficacy scores. Training and practice are two ways of enhancing one’s perceived self-efficacy in developing skills and tasks required for crisis management [43]. Crisis management courses can promote the participants’ perceived self-efficacy for effective management, leadership, and teamwork [44].

Providing effective training can improve self-efficacy in communications, teamwork, and leadership [44, 45]. Regarding the structure, organizational hierarchy and powerful position of senior managers, their planning and recommendation of training courses for crisis managers will bear more considerable effects. However, in the organizational structure of medical universities supervised by the Iranian Ministry of Health and Treatment, the Incident Control System (ICS) and the pre-hospital Emergency Medical Services are controlled by the Treatment Deputy. Also, the district health networks, the managers of which constitute the incidents commandment system in the periphery, are managed by both the Health Deputy and the Treatment Deputy. The Incident Control System and the pre-hospital Emergency Medical Services are responsible for planning programs for responding to disasters and training in disaster management at universities. At the organizational hierarchy, they are at the same level as the district health networks. Therefore, they lack the authority to seek the participation of managerial units in providing crisis management training and to command managers to attend the proposed courses.

There was a significant relationship between previous crisis experiences and the F1 (p = 0.002) and F3 (p = 0.003) scores, which was in line with the findings of Jaafaripooyan et al. [34] but it differed from that of Wolfrum et al. [33]. Although F2 (p = 0.074) and F4 (p = 0.051) values were not significant, managers with previous crisis management experiences scored higher in these two domains as well. Based on Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy, successful experience in crisis management [46] and participation in crisis management contribute to an increase in managers’ self-efficacy. Due to the effect of crisis management experiences on F1 and F3 scores, and similar impacts of training courses on improving the F1, F2, and F4 scores, simulated crisis situations should be arranged for managers in order to raise their perceived self-efficacy through training and letting them take part in practice in full-fledged maneuvers. Participating in training courses in disaster management will help the participants become familiar with role specifications in the crisis. Accordingly, they will respond to the crisis with appropriate preparations to reduce the effects of the disaster without being perplexed [42]. Also, under the effect of performance accomplishment as a resource for improving self-efficacy [46], reviewing the lessons from previous crisis management experience seem to facilitate achieving improved self-efficacy.

The staff recruited in the incidents commandment of a medical university who are employed under a temporary contract scored lower in all four factors (F1, F2, F3, F4), although the difference was significant (P = 0.001); the reasons can be explained as follow: being undervalued by senior managers [47], the uncertainty of their occupational promotion and perspective, and being less included in crisis management training. In addition, temporary contract employees face a social stigma for their unstable occupational positions which leads them to inefficacy; therefore, they develop a lower perceived self-efficacy in expressing themselves and even avoid expressing constructive views which can otherwise assist organizational development and promotion [48].

In linear regression analysis, F1 (p = 0.003) and F2 (p = 0.009) scores significantly increased with the increase in participants’ years of employment (Table 5). A one-year increase in their employment history added 0.29 and 0.26 to the F1 and F3 values, respectively; this is, however, not consistent with the findings of Jaafaripooyan et al. [31].

In linear regression analysis, the manager's self-efficacy score increased significantly in the other three areas as the F2 score increased. Individuals with higher self-efficacy do not consider difficult tasks to be a threat. Rather, they look at the problem in a challenging way and try to solve it. They are committed to achieving predetermined challenging goals by planning and predicting the actions they need to take. If they fail to achieve the set goals, they will attribute failure to incomplete knowledge or inadequate effort [25]. A manager’s self-efficacy determines their ability to plan and develop preparations for responding to events and disasters.

With the increase in F3 scores, manager self-efficacy significantly increased in both F1 and F2. Individuals with higher self-efficacy exhibit superior capabilities to manage and control the situation when faced with threats and stressors [25]. On behalf of their organization, managers are responsible for coordinating and improving organizational efficacy. Achieving organizational goals depends on the characteristics and competencies of a manager, including his/her self-efficacy [23, 49].

As the F1 scores increased, so did the manager's self-efficacy in both F2 and F3. In a study by Yarmohammadian et al., commandment duties in domains defined as “ability to notify colleagues in the event of a crisis” and “ability to communicate and respond in the event of a crisis” were given higher scores than others [21], which is in line with the present findings. The areas of “ability to find a solution to reduce staff stress” and “ability to attract human and financial support” were given the lowest scores, which is not consistent with the present findings. In our present study, we categorized these domains as control, coordination, and emotional management tasks. It can be said that the ICS managers had effective commandment capabilities, and had taken measures to seek human and financial support before the occurrence of the crisis. The higher the F4 scores, the higher the F2 scores. If team members are properly oriented toward how they should function in a crisis, they will perceive fewer obstacles to their goals and the provision of professional services in the event of a crisis; they will gain more preparation to respond to the crisis as well [42]. In addition, healthcare providers will act more effectively in planning [50]; this is in line with the results of the present study.

It seems that better preparation and commandment of the pre-hospital and emergency medical services can be achieved by the promotion of its organizational level. Also, it seems essential to consider crisis managers’ abilities and attendance in relevant courses when appointing ICS managers. In designing and presentation of training; novel and creative educational methods are to be tailored to participants’ level of education and organizational position. It should be emphasized here that even training the temporary staff is an organizational investment that can return benefits to the system. This enhances their perceived self-efficacy and promotes their commitment to the organization [47]. Therefore, empowering these managers should be a priority.

Availability of data and materials

The corresponding author may provide you with the data sets created during this investigation.



Incidence Command System


Emergency Operations Center


Word Health Organization




  1. Cutter SL, Ahearn JA, Amadei B, Crawford P, Eide EA, Galloway GE, et al. Disaster resilience: a national imperative. Environ Sci Policy Sustainable Dev. 2013;55(2):25–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Burkle FM, Egawa S, MacIntyre AG, Otomo Y, Beadling CW, Walsh JT. The 2015 Hyogo framework for action: cautious optimism. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2014;8(3):191–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sheikhbardsiri H, Yarmohammadian MH, Khankeh H, Khademipour G, Moradian MJ, Rastegarfar B, et al. An operational exercise for disaster assessment and emergency preparedness in south of Iran. J Public Health Manage Pract. 2020;26(5):451–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yavari P, Lotfi M, Hassanzadeh J. Epidemiology text book of prevalent disease in iran: Ischemic heart disease. Tehran: Gap nashr; 2014. p. 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Rezaei F, Maracy MR, Yarmohammadian MH, Sheikhbardsiri H. Hospitals preparedness using WHO guideline: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Hong Kong J Emerg Med. 2018;25(4):211–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lennquist S. Major incidents: Definitions and demands on the health-care system. Medical Responses to Major Incidents and Disasters A Practical Guide for Medical Staff. In: Lennquist S, editor. 1st ed. London: Springer; 2012. p. 1–7. 

  7. Bradt DA, Aitken P, FitzGerald G, Swift R, O’Reilly G, Bartley B. Emergency department surge capacity: recommendations of the Australasian Surge Strategy Working Group. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(12):1350–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sheikhbardsiri H, Doustmohammadi MM, Mousavi SH, Khankeh H. Qualitative study of health system preparedness for successful implementation of disaster exercises in the Iranian context. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2022;16(2):500–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sheikhbardsiri H, Esamaeili Abdar Z, Sheikhasadi H, Ayoubi Mahani S, Sarani A. Observance of patients’ rights in emergency department of educational hospitals in south-east Iran. Int J Hum Rights Healthcare. 2020;13(5):435–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Khankeh HR, Khorasani-Zavareh D, Johanson E, Mohammadi R, Ahmadi F, Mohammadi R. Disaster health-related challenges and requirements: a grounded theory study in Iran. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2011;26(3):151–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Khademipour G, Nakhaee N, Anari SMS, Sadeghi M, Ebrahimnejad H, Sheikhbardsiri H. Crowd simulations and determining the critical density point of emergency situations. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2017;11(6):674–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Organization WH. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2021. Report. 21/09/2021.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sahebi A, Yousefi A, Abdi K, Jamshidbeigi Y, Moayedi S, Torres M, et al. The prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: an umbrella review and meta-analysis. Front Psych. 2021;12:764738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abdollahi M. Analysis of incidence and mortality due to Covid 19 Iran and the world. SALĀMAT-I IJTIMĀĪ (Community Health). 2021;8(4):115–20.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Aronsson-Storrier M. UN office for disaster risk reduction (2018). Yearb Int Disaster Law Online. 2019;1(1):314–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. World Health Organization. Risk reduction and emergency preparedness: World Health Organization six-year strategy for the health sector and community capacity development. Geneva. 2007. Author. Retrieved from:

  17. Hadley CN, Pittinsky TL, Sommer SA, Zhu W. Measuring the efficacy of leaders to assess information and make decisions in a crisis: the C-LEAD scale. Leadersh Q. 2011;22(4):633–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Patterson O, Weil F, Patel K. The role of community in disaster response: conceptual models. Popul Res Policy Rev. 2010;29(2):127–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. United Nations. International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. Secretariat. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015: Making Development Sustainable: the Future of Disaster Risk Management. UN. 2015.

  20. Sheikhbardsiri H, Afshar PJ, Baniasadi H, Farokhzadian J. Workplace violence against prehospital paramedic personnel (city and road) and factors related to this type of violence in Iran. J Interpers Violence. 2022;37(13–14):NP11683-98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Yarmohammadian M, Fooladvand M, Haghshenas A, Atighechian G, Alavi A. Crisis management competencies and their relation to self-efficiency of managers in the organizations related to disasters. Int J Health Sys Disaster Manage. 2013;1(2):64–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Molavi-Taleghani Y, Ebrahimpour H, Sheikhbardsiri H. A proactive risk assessment through healthcare failure mode and effect analysis in pediatric surgery department. J Compr Pediatr. 2020;11(3).

  23. Bandura A. Cultivate self efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness: handbook of organization behavior. Oxford: Blackwell; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev. 1977;84(2):191.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Bandura A, Wessels S. Self-efficacy. na. 1994.

  26. Davarani ER, Tavan A, Amiri H, Sahebi A. Response capability of hospitals to an incident caused by mass gatherings in southeast Iran. Injury. 2022;53(5):1722–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Leiter MP. Burn-out as a crisis in self-efficacy: conceptual and practical implications. Work Stress. 1992;6(2):107–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kafi S, Etesami MS, Abdollahi MH, Shahgholian M. The relationship between hardiness and resilience with self-efficacy in crisis managers of Red Crescent Society. Q Sci J Rescue Relief. 2016;8(3):70–80.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 1998;124(2):240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Baas LS, Conway G, Dietrich D, Rozin J, Bell B, Giesting R, et al. Self efficacy of nurses caring for patients with heart failure. J Cardiac Fail. 2003;9(5):S95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Jaafaripooyan E, Atighechian G, Saradar A. Assessing the self-efficacy level in disasters among senior managers of hospitals. J Hosp. 2017;16(2):36–45.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ventura M, Salanova M, Llorens S. Professional self-efficacy as a predictor of burnout and engagement: the role of challenge and hindrance demands. J Psychol. 2015;149(3):277–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wolfrum MD. An analysis of self-efficacy of collegiate aviation crisis leaders in the United States: Concordia University Chicago. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pouyan J. Level of self-efficacy of senior hospital managers in dealing with accidents and disasters. Hosp J. 2017;16(2):10.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Field A. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Sage. 2013. ISBN: 9781446274583.

  36. Smith S, Farra S, Dempsey A, Arms D. Preparing nursing students for leadership using a disaster-related simulation. Nurse Educ. 2015;40(4):212–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Brannan JD, White A, Bezanson JL. Simulator effects on cognitive skills and confidence levels. J Nurs Educ. 2008;47(11):495–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilkerson W, Avstreih D, Gruppen L, Beier KP, Woolliscroft J. Using immersive simulation for training first responders for mass casualty incidents. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15(11):1152–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Schunk DH, Pajares F. Self-efficacy theory. Handb Motiv Sch. 2009;35:54.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pajares F. Current directions in self-efficacy research. Adv Motiv Achiev. 1997;10(149):1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wutjatmiko A, Zuhrivah L, Fathoni M. Relationship between personal self-efficacy and flood disaster preparedness of Indonesian nurses. Public Health Indones. 2018;4(1):25–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Melnikov S, Itzhaki M, Kagan I. Israeli nurses’ intention to report for work in an emergency or disaster. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2014;46(2):134–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Jonson C-O, Pettersson J, Rybing J, Nilsson H, Prytz E. Short simulation exercises to improve emergency department nurses’ self-efficacy for initial disaster management: controlled before and after study. Nurse Educ Today. 2017;55:20–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Watters C, Reedy G, Ross A, Morgan NJ, Handslip R, Jaye P. Does interprofessional simulation increase self-efficacy: a comparative study. BMJ Open. 2015;5(1):e005472.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Chang S-J, Kwon E-O, Kwon Y-O, Kwon H-K. The effects of simulation training for new graduate critical care nurses on knowledge, self-efficacy, and performance ability of emergency situations at intensive care unit. Korean J Adult Nurs. 2010;22(4):375–83.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-Efficacy Beliefs Adolescents. 2006;5(1):307–37.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Chambel MJ, Sobral F. Training is an investment with return in temporary workers: a social exchange perspective. Career Dev Int. 2011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Qian X, Li Q, Song Y, Wang J. Temporary employment and voice behavior: the role of self-efficacy and political savvy. Asia Pac J Hum Resour. 2020;58(4):607–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Mozzaffari SA. Determining the skills and competencies of the managers of the physical education organization from their own point of view and presenting a management model in this field. Mot Sci Sports. 2003;1(1):12.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Wynd C. A proposed model for military disaster nursing. Online J Issues Nurs. 2006;11(3).

Download references


The authors would like to express their gratitude to all of the study participants.


The authors received no financial support for this article's research, authorship, and/or publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



The study's concept and design were created by A.A. The survey was performed by M.S, and data analysis and manuscript writing were handled by M.S. A.P oversaw the research and provided critical feedback on the manuscript. The final manuscript was read and reviewed by all of the authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Majid Sartipi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Ethics Committee of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences approved this study. The code of ethics is IR.ZAUMS.REC.1399.403. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations; this article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study written informed consent was obtained from individual participants. The confidentiality and anonymity of the participants were ensured by coding the questionnaires. Study participants were informed clearly about their freedom to opt out of the study at any point in time without justifying doing so.

A statement to confirm that all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations: The authors hereby declare that all the methods used in the process of conducting research and writing the article have been carried out in accordance with the guidelines and regulations related to research and ethics in research that have been approved by the Ministry of Health of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

A statement to confirm that all experimental protocols were approved by a named institutional and/or licensing committee: All protocols implemented in the research process have been approved under the ethical code number IR.ZAUMS.REC.1399.403.

Limitation: Due to the covid-19 pandemic, managers' preoccupations could have an impact on the quality of responses and the completion rate of questionnaires. In order to overcome this limitation, necessary coordination was done with the managers before referring to them. In addition, interviewers were used who established good communication and visited several times, and were present until the completion of the questionnaire. Also, some managers refused to complete the questionnaire despite emphasizing the confidentiality of the information provided in the questionnaire and did not cooperate with the researcher.

All study participants signed informed consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable for that section.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aminafshar, A., Sartipi, M. & Pakzad, A. The perceived self-efficacy of senior, middle, and operations managers of the incident command system dealing with emergencies and disasters during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Emerg Med 23, 133 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: