Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30753325›Full record

ReviewBritish medical bulletin2019

Scientific evidence on natural disasters and health emergency and disaster risk management in Asian rural-based area.

E Y Y Chan, A Y T Man, H C Y Lam

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British medical bulletin, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Economic Impact Evaluation of COVID-19 Public Health Management Across Countries.The International journal of health planning and management · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Most Stressful Events during the COVID-19 Epidemic.Iranian journal of psychiatry · 2020
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

E Y Y ChanCollaborating Centre for Oxford University and CUHK for Disaster and Medical Humanitarian Response (CCOUC), Division of Global Health and Humanitarian Medicine, The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Division of Global Health and Humanitarian Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
A Y T ManCollaborating Centre for Oxford University and CUHK for Disaster and Medical Humanitarian Response (CCOUC), Division of Global Health and Humanitarian Medicine, The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Division of Global Health and Humanitarian Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
H C Y LamCollaborating Centre for Oxford University and CUHK for Disaster and Medical Humanitarian Response (CCOUC), Division of Global Health and Humanitarian Medicine, The Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, Division of Global Health and Humanitarian Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDisaster epidemiological studies indicate that Asia has the highest frequency of natural disasters. Rural communities are heavily impacted by natural disasters and have different healthcare needs to urban ones. Referencing Asian countries, this paper's objective is to provide an overview of health impacts and the current evidence for designing programmes and policies related to rural health emergency and disaster risk management (health-EDRM). SOURCES OF DATA: This paper uses published English-only reports and papers retrieved from PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Medline and PsycINFO on rural disaster and emergency responses and relief, health impact and disease patterns in Asia (January 2000-January 2018). AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Earthquakes are the most studied natural disasters in rural communities. The medical burden and health needs of rural communities were most commonly reported among populations of extreme age. Most of the existing research evidence for rural interventions was reported in China. There lacks published peer-reviewed reports of programme impacts on personal and community preparedness. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: There is a lack of evidence-based health-EDRM interventions to evaluate implementation effectiveness in rural areas despite vast volumes of health-related disaster literature. GROWING POINTS: Climate change-related disasters are increasing in frequency and severity. Evidence is needed for disaster risk reduction interventions to address the health risks specific to rural populations. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: To support global policy development, urgent evidence is needed on the intervention effectiveness, long-term health outcomes, local and cultural relevance as well as sustainability of health relief produced by Health-EDRM programmes in rural areas.

Indexed as

Natural DisastersAsiaDisaster PlanningEarthquakesEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMental HealthRisk ManagementRural Health ServicesAsiaDisaster preparednessdisaster risk reductionhealth-EDRMnatural disastersrural health

Identifiers

PMID30753325
PMCPMC6413858

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.