ArticlePLoS currents2012
Disaster Metrics: A Proposed Quantitative Assessment Tool in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies - The Public Health Impact Severity Scale (PHISS).
Article in PLoS currents, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and a supertyphoon: A quantitative study in Cebu, Philippines.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
- Can severity of a humanitarian crisis be quantified? Assessment of the INFORM severity index.Globalization and health · 2023Article
- Admissions and surgery as indicators of hospital functions in Sierra Leone during the west-African Ebola outbreak.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Who Is Worst Off? Developing a Severity-scoring Model of Complex Emergency Affected Countries in Order to Ensure Needs Based Funding.PLoS currents · 2015Article
- Surveillance and epidemiology in natural disasters: a novel framework and assessment of reliability.PLoS currents · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplex Humanitarian Emergencies (CHE) result in rapid degradation of population health and quickly overwhelm indigenous health resources. Numerous governmental, non-governmental, national and international organizations and agencies are involved in the assessment of post-CHE affected populations. To date, there is no entirely quantitative assessment tool conceptualized to measure the public health impact of CHE.
methodsEssential public health parameters in CHE were identified based on the Sphere Project "Minimum Standards", and scoring rubrics were proposed based on the prevailing evidence when applicable.
results12 quantitative parameters were identified, representing the four categories of "Minimum Standards for Disaster Response" according to the Sphere Project; health, shelter, food and nutrition, in addition to water and sanitation. The cumulative tool constitutes a quantitative scale, referred to as the Public Health Impact Severity Scale (PHISS), and the score on this scale ranges from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 100.
conclusionQuantitative measurement of the public health impact of CHE is germane to accurate assessment, in order to identify the scale and scope of the critical response required for the relief efforts of the affected populations. PHISS is a new conceptual metric tool, proposed to add an objective quantitative dimension to the post-CHE assessment arsenal. PHISS has not yet been validated, and studies are needed with prospective data collection to test its validity, feasibility and reliability. CITATION: Bayram JD, Kysia R, Kirsch TD. Disaster Metrics: A Proposed Quantitative Assessment Tool in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies - The Public Health Impact Severity Scale (PHISS). PLOS Currents Disasters. 2012 Aug 21. doi: 10.1371/4f7b4bab0d1a3.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.