MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412406769 · doi:10.1186/s13031-025-00685-x

Healthcare accessibility in yemen’s conflict zones: comprehensive review focused on strategies and solutions

2025· review· en· W4412406769 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed F. Salem, Iman Alharazi, Yaser Gamallat, Aamer Aldbyani, Bushra Amer, Namoonga Chimpandu

Bibliographic record

VenueConflict and Health · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth services researchPublic healthHealth careHealth administrationMedicinePublic relationsPolitical scienceNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nine-year ongoing conflict in Yemen accumulated humanitarian crisis, and severely struggling healthcare system. In the current review, we are trying here to elucidate the many perspective areas where the conflict in Yemen has made it harder to access medical care, emphasizing how the war has negatively affected medical infrastructure, caused a severe shortage of medical supplies, and obstructed access to or the ability to receive medical services. We conducted a comprehensive search across reports from in-ground working organizations like UN, MSF, ICRC, and official authorial channels, including local organizations as well to illustrate how the conflict-induced challenges have drastically limited access to essential services, as well as literature repositories (PubMed MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science). Then, data were thematically presented.Our data suggest urgent and thoughtful long-term solutions, including the need of economic support, reconstructing healthcare infrastructure through coordinated efforts, and setting up safe supply lines to ensure a steady flow of medical resources particularly in intensive war zones where mobile clinics could serve as an alternative. Additionally, we highlight the importance of supporting and incentivizing the healthcare workforce to prevent further depletion through training programs that include professional and practical skills and ensuring safe transport to and from medical facilities for both patients and healthcare personnel. Moreover, we recommend implementing targeted programs to improve access to quality healthcare for disproportionately affected populations, guaranteeing access to medical treatment as a right and not a privilege, and most significantly, ensuring that the medical facilities are not targeted. Therefore, these focused recommendations aim to guide policymakers, international donors, and on-ground NGOs in restoring healthcare access and improving the quality of life for millions of Yemenis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.328
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.097 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConflict and HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207