MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120758940 · doi:10.1017/s1049023x11006388

Primary Health care and Disasters—The Current State of the Literature: What We Know, Gaps and Next Steps

2011· review· en· W2120758940 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital and Disaster Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency managementPreparednessHealth careGrey literatureDisaster risk reductionGlobal healthMedicineInternational healthNursingHealth policyPublic relationsPolitical scienceMedical emergencyPublic healthMEDLINEEnvironmental planningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The 2009 Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction/Emergency Preparedness (DRR/EP) and the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 demonstrate increased international commitment to DRR/EP in addition to response and recovery. In addition, the World Health Report 2008 has re-focused the world's attention on the renewal of Primary Health Care (PHC) as a set of values/principles for all sectors. Evidence suggests that access to comprehensive PHC improves health outcomes and an integrated PHC approach may improve health in low income countries (LICs). Strong PHC health systems can provide stronger health emergency management, which reinforce each other for healthier communities. PROBLEM: The global re-emphasis of PHC recently necessitates the health sector and the broader disaster community to consider health emergency management from the perspective of PHC. How PHC is being described in the literature related to disasters and the quality of this literature is reviewed. Identifying which topics/lessons learned are being published helps to identify key lessons learned, gaps and future directions. METHODS: Fourteen major scientific and grey literature databases searched. Primary Health Care or Primary Care coupled with the term disaster was searched (title or abstract). The 2009 ISDR definition of disaster and the 1978 World Health Organization definition of Primary Health Care were used. 119 articles resulted. RESULTS: Literature characteristics; 16% research papers, only 29% target LICs, 8% of authors were from LICs, 7% clearly defined PHC, 50% used PHC to denote care provided by clinicians and 4% cited PHC values and principles. Most topics related to disaster response. Key topics; true need for PHC, mental health, chronic disease, models of PHC, importance of PHC soon after a natural disaster relative to acute care, methods of surge capacity, utilization patterns in recovery, access to vulnerable populations, rebuilding with the PHC approach and using current PHC infrastructure to build capacity for disasters. CONCLUSIONS: Primary Health Care is very important for effective health emergency management during response and recovery, but also for risk reduction, including preparedness. There is need to; increase the quality of this research, clarify terminology, encourage paper authorship from LICs, develop and validate PHC- specific disaster indicators and to encourage organizations involved in PHC disaster activities to publish data. Lessons learned from high-income countries need contextual analysis about applicability in low-income countries.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it