MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Earthquakes to Floods: A Scoping Review of Health-related Disaster Research in Low- and Middle-income Countries

2018· review· en· W2889343495 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

VenuePLoS Currents · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationMcGill University Health CentreMcMaster UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMedicineOccupational safety and healthScale (ratio)Disaster researchSuicide preventionPoison controlEnvironmental healthGeographyPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Health-related disaster research is a relatively small; but growing field of inquiry. A better understanding of the scope and scale of health-related disaster research that has occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) would be useful to funders, researchers, humanitarian aid organizations, and governments as they strive to identify gaps, disparities, trends, and needs of populations affected by disasters. METHODOLOGY: We performed a scoping review using the process outlined by Arksey & O'Malley to assess the characteristics of peer-reviewed publications of empirical health-related disaster research conducted in LMICs and published in the years 2003-2012. RESULTS: Five hundred and eighty-two relevant publications were identified. Earthquakes were by far the most commonly researched events (62% of articles) in the review's timeframe. More articles were published about disasters in China & South Asia/South East Asia than all other regions. Just over half of the articles (51%) were published by research teams in which all the authors' primary listed affiliations were with an institution located in the same country where the research was conducted. Most of the articles were classified as either mental health, neurology and stress physiology (35%) or as traumatology, wounds and surgery (19%). In just over half of the articles (54%), data collection was initiated within 3 months of the disaster, and in 13% research was initiated between 3 and 6 months following the disaster. The articles in our review were published in 282 different journals. DISCUSSION: The high number of publications studying consequences of an earthquake may not be surprising, given that earthquakes are devastating sudden onset events in LMICs. Researchers study topics that require immediate attention following a disaster, such as trauma surgery, as well as health problems that manifest later, such as post-traumatic stress disorder. One neglected area of study during the review's timeframe was the impact of disasters on non-communicable and chronic diseases (excluding mental health), and the management of these conditions in the aftermath of disasters. Strengthening disaster research capacity is critical for fostering robust research in the aftermath of disasters, a particular need in LMICs.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.002

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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.165 · 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