UN peacekeeper health and risk factors --- a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Conflicts, natural disasters, and complex emergencies present substantial health challenges to United Nations (UN) peacekeepers deployed in mission areas. This scoping review aims at summarizing previous research on the health of UN peacekeepers and identifies issues for further investigation. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews, we systematically searched Web of Science, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) for English and Chinese literature published from April 1997 to November 2023. A data charting form was developed by two reviewers to extract relevant themes and provided narrative descriptions. RESULTS: We screened 1079 de-duplicated records and included 143 studies in this scoping review. There were 112 studies on the health status of UN peacekeepers, with more than half on mental health problems such as stress and anxiety. Many studies explored the health status of UN peacekeepers in African countries deployed from mainly U.S., Canada, U.K., China, Australia and Norway. There were 39 studies on the health risk factors of UN peacekeepers, including natural environmental, social environmental, psychological, behavioral lifestyle, biological factors and health service factors. There were 62 articles on the health protection of UN peacekeepers, mainly based on previous deployment experience, with a lack of theoretical guidance from global health perspectives. This scoping review found that health problems of UN peacekeepers are complicated, and whose impacts are cross-border. Social environmental factors were explored the most among health risk factors. Disease prevention measures, medical and health measures, and psychosocial measures were the main health protection for UN peacekeepers. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlighted that health problems of UN peacekeepers were typical global health issues with complicated and cross-border health risk factors. Therefore, comprehensive strategies could be taken from global health perspectives, including multi-phases (before-deployment, during-deployment, and post-deployment), multi-disciplines (public health, medicine, politics, health diplomacy, and others), and multi-levels (the UN, host countries, troop-contributing countries, the UN peacekeeping team, and UN peacekeepers).
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".