COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural and remote areas: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review used the Arksey and O'Malley approach to explore COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural and remote areas to identify lessons to inform future health preparedness and response planning. A search of scientific and grey literature for rural COVID-19 preparedness and responses identified 5 668 articles published between 2019 and early 2022. A total of 293 articles were included, of which 160 (54.5%) were from high income countries and 106 (36.2%) from middle income countries. Studies focused mostly on the Maintenance of Essential Health Services (63; 21.5%), Surveillance, epidemiological investigation, contact tracing and adjustment of public health and social measures (60; 20.5%), Coordination and Planning (32; 10.9%); Case Management (30; 10.2%), Social Determinants of Health (29; 10%) and Risk Communication (22; 7.5%). Rural health systems were less prepared and national COVID-19 responses were often not adequately tailored to rural areas. Promising COVID-19 responses involved local leaders and communities, were collaborative and multisectoral, and engaged local cultures. Non-pharmaceutical interventions were applied less, support for access to water and sanitation at scale was weak, and more targeted approaches to the isolation of cases and quarantine of contacts were preferable to blanket lockdowns. Rural pharmacists, community health workers and agricultural extension workers assisted in overcoming shortages of health professionals. Vaccination coverage was hindered by weaker rural health systems. Digital technology enabled better coordination, communication, and access to health services, yet for some was inaccessible. Rural livelihoods and food security were affected through disruptions to local labour markets, farm produce markets and input supply chains. Important lessons include the need for rural proofing national health preparedness and response and optimizing synergies between top-down planning with localised planning and coordination. Equity-oriented rural health systems strengthening and action on rural social determinants is essential to better prepare for and respond to future outbreaks.
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 | 0.030 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".