Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31343759›Full record

ReviewDisasters2020

Building safety in humanitarian programmes that support post-disaster shelter self-recovery: an evidence review.

Louise Harriss, Charles Parrack, Zoe Jordan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Disasters, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Louise HarrissVisiting Researcher, Centre for Development and Emergency Practice, School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
Charles ParrackSenior Lecturer, Centre for Development and Emergency Practice, School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.
Zoe JordanResearch Assistant, Centre for Development and Emergency Practice, School of Architecture, Oxford Brookes University, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The humanitarian sector is increasingly aware of the role that good quality evidence plays in the underpinning of effective and accountable practice. This review addresses the need for reliable evidence by evaluating current knowledge about the intersection of two key outcome targets of post-disaster shelter response: supporting shelter self-recovery and building back safer. Evidence about post-disaster shelter programmes that aim to improve hazard resistance while supporting shelter self-recovery has been systematically analysed and evaluated. Technical support, especially training in safer construction techniques, was found to be a central programme feature, but the impact of this and other programme attributes on building safety was largely not ascertainable. Programme reports and studies lack sufficient detail, especially on the hazard resistance of repaired houses. Accounts of shelter programmes need to include more reliable reporting of key activities and assessment of outcomes, in order to contribute to the growing evidence base in this field.

Indexed as

AltruismHousingHumansProgram EvaluationRelief WorkSafetybuild back saferdisaster risk reductionevidence-based practicehousingpost-disaster reconstructionself-recoveryshelter

Identifiers

PMID31343759
PMCPMC7154719

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.