These reminders stated the final date by which the current round must be completed. An a priori decision was made

to limit the study to three rounds of data collection to minimize participant fatigue [21]. The website was piloted for inhibitor purchase acceptability and usability by Scottish Ambulance Service Special Operations Response Team ambulance clinicians and emergency planning officers. Feedback from the pilot stage was positive, although individuals noted that the task was substantial due to the number of items included. Round one Items for round one (n=232) were collated from the researchers’ existing knowledge of current stock Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical for mass casualties incidents in the UK. The list of items to rate was long, so they were split into subsets according to their purpose (i.e. Items relating to Airway; Breathing; Circulation; Examination Medicines; Splintage; Comfort; Control of Infection; Transport; Other) each with a separate tab on the web-page. This made the questionnaire look less daunting and helped users find the item they had reached Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical if they had saved their partial progress, and returned later. Participants were asked to carry out two tasks for each listed item. Firstly, they were asked to rate the importance they would give to each item along a scale of 1 to 5 (Very unimportant – 1; Quite unimportant –

2; Neither – 3; Quite important – 4; Very important – 5); and secondly, they were asked to state how much of each item they Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical believed would be required to treat 100 patients

at the scene of a big bang mass casualties incident. Participants were offered the chance to click Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical a button to declare that they had no opinion or knowledge for any given item. This also allowed an automatic check via the web site that no items had been accidently missed. The web site displayed a bar to inform the user of their progress and offered a facility to help them find any items they had missed. Participants who had completed less than 100% of the questionnaire were automatically emailed a reminder before the end of each round. Participants were also able to add any clinical items Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical (for inclusion in round two) which they felt were important but missing from the round one list. Round two Participants were asked to review the aggregated findings for the previous round together with their previous individual ratings, as well as 16 unique items of clinical Anacetrapib equipment added in round one. Participants were invited to reconsider their rating of importance and quantification for each item. As in the previous round, electronic reminders were sent out to all non-completing participants after two weeks. Round three Participants were again asked to review the aggregated findings for the previous round together with their previous individual ratings, and were again invited to reconsider their rating and quantification for each item of equipment in respect of the more information results of round two. Electronic reminders were sent out after two weeks.