{"title":"Preventive Measures and Crowd Management Strategies to Mitigate the Risk of Stampedes in Public Gatherings: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Rahul Singh Chowhan, Ramesh Kumar Hudda, Arun Kumar Sharma, Pankaj Bhardwaj","doi":"10.3389/phrs.2026.1609310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate crowd-management strategies used at mass public gatherings and to identify the evidence gaps and priorities that reduce the risk of stampedes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S guidelines, the paper searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar (gray literature), and the WHO Global Health Library (gray literature) published between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2025. Eligible studies included observational, quasi-experimental, and simulation-based evaluations of crowd-safety interventions. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised study quality using ROBINS-I and JBI checklist. A narrative (thematic) synthesis grouped interventions into engineering, operational, technology, and communication approaches.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 833 unique records identified, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were mainly observational analyses, simulation/modeling studies, or quasi-experiments from diverse settings (pilgrimages, festivals, sports events). Multi-modal strategies combining environmental design (one-way flows, barriers), operational controls, real-time monitoring, and trained personnel were consistently associated with improved crowd-flow indicators (shorter evacuation times).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Integrated crowd-management approaches can mitigate stampede risks, but require high-quality empirical evaluations and standardized outcome metrics to strengthen evidence for policy and practice.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251142906, identifier CRD420251142906.</p>","PeriodicalId":35944,"journal":{"name":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","volume":"47 ","pages":"1609310"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13370754/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2026.1609310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate crowd-management strategies used at mass public gatherings and to identify the evidence gaps and priorities that reduce the risk of stampedes.
Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S guidelines, the paper searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar (gray literature), and the WHO Global Health Library (gray literature) published between January 1, 2010 and December 30, 2025. Eligible studies included observational, quasi-experimental, and simulation-based evaluations of crowd-safety interventions. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and appraised study quality using ROBINS-I and JBI checklist. A narrative (thematic) synthesis grouped interventions into engineering, operational, technology, and communication approaches.
Results: Of 833 unique records identified, 13 studies met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were mainly observational analyses, simulation/modeling studies, or quasi-experiments from diverse settings (pilgrimages, festivals, sports events). Multi-modal strategies combining environmental design (one-way flows, barriers), operational controls, real-time monitoring, and trained personnel were consistently associated with improved crowd-flow indicators (shorter evacuation times).
Conclusion: Integrated crowd-management approaches can mitigate stampede risks, but require high-quality empirical evaluations and standardized outcome metrics to strengthen evidence for policy and practice.
目标:评估大规模公共集会中使用的人群管理策略,并确定减少踩踏风险的证据差距和优先事项。方法:按照PRISMA 2020和PRISMA- s指南,检索2010年1月1日至2025年12月30日期间发表的PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science、谷歌Scholar(灰色文献)和WHO Global Health Library(灰色文献)。符合条件的研究包括观察性、准实验性和基于模拟的人群安全干预评估。两位审稿人独立筛选记录,提取数据,并使用ROBINS-I和JBI检查表评估研究质量。叙述(专题)综合分组干预工程,操作,技术和通信方法。结果:在确定的833个独特记录中,13个研究符合纳入标准。纳入的研究主要是观察分析、模拟/建模研究或来自不同环境(朝圣、节日、体育赛事)的准实验。结合环境设计(单向流动、障碍)、操作控制、实时监控和训练有素的人员的多模式策略始终与改善的人群流量指标(缩短疏散时间)相关。结论:综合人群管理方法可以降低踩踏风险,但需要高质量的实证评估和标准化的结果指标,以加强政策和实践的证据。系统综述注册:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251142906,标识符CRD420251142906。