The Impact of Flood Adaptation Measures on Affected Population’s Mental Health: A mixed method Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The frequency and severity of floods has increased in different regions of the world due to climate change. Although the impact of floods on human health has been extensively studied, the increase in the segments of the population that are likely to be impacted by floods in the future makes it necessary to examine how adaptation measures impact the mental health of individuals affected by these natural disasters. The goal of this scoping review is to document the existing studies on flood adaptation measures and their impact on the mental health of affected populations, in order to identify the best preventive strategies as well as limitations that deserve further exploration. This study employed the methodology of the PRISMA-ScR extension for scoping reviews to systematically search the databases Medline and Web of Science to identify studies that examined the impact of adaptation measures on the mental health of flood victims. The database queries resulted in a total of 857 records from both databases. Following two rounds of screening, 9 studies were included for full-text analysis. Most of the analyzed studies sought to identify the factors that drive resilience in flood victims, particularly in the context of social capital (6 studies), whereas the remaining studies analyzed the impact of external interventions on the mental health of flood victims, either from preventive or post-disaster measures (3 studies). There is a very limited number of studies that analyze the impact of adaptation measures on the mental health of populations and individuals affected by floods, which complicates the generalizability of their findings. There is a need for public health policies and guidelines for the development of flood adaptation measures that adequately consider a social component that can be used to support the mental health of flood victims.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.158 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".