WHO Guidance on Research Methods for Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed and supported numerous initiatives to build capacity and awareness about health emergency and disaster risk management (Health EDRM). These include establishing the Health EDRM Research Network (Health EDRM RN) in 2018 and the publication of the Health EDRM Framework in 2019. These initiatives recognize that research is vital to generating the evidence to inform decision making and research that is integral to disaster preparedness, response and recovery will be vital to delivering the aspirations associated with caring, coping and overcoming in an increasingly challenging world. Method: To strengthen the capacity for conduct and use of research, resources were developed by the WHO Guidance on Research Methods for Health EDRM. Results: This first WHO textbook on Health EDRM research methods was published in 2021 and updated in 2022 with a chapter on Health EDRM research in the context of COVID-19. The 44 chapters offer practical advice about how to plan, conduct and report on a variety of quantitative and qualitative studies that can inform questions about policies and programs for health-related emergencies and disasters across different settings and level of resources. Case studies of direct relevance to Health EDRM provide real-life examples of research methods and how they have modified policies. More than 160 authors in 30 countries contributed to the guidance, which is relevant to researchers, would-be researchers, policy makers and practitioners. It should help improve the quality of Health EDRM research; the quality of policy, practice and guidance supported by the evidence generated; and research capacity, collaboration and engagement among researchers, the research community, policy-makers, practitioners and other stakeholders. Conclusion: The Guidance is being supplemented by additional resources, including audio podcasts, slideshows, video presentations and webinars, and the content as a whole will be discussed in this presentation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it