Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37967067›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2023

COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural and remote areas: A scoping review.

Lilian Dudley, Ian Couper, Niluka Wijekoon Kannangarage, Selvan Naidoo, Clara Rodriguez Ribas, Theadora Swift Koller, Taryn Young

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A scoping review and expert consensus on digital determinants of health.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Lilian DudleyDivision of Health Systems and Public Health, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5370-1562
Ian CouperUkwanda Centre for Rural Health, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1587-6075
Niluka Wijekoon KannangarageHealth Emergencies Program, World Health Organisation, Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.
Selvan NaidooUkwanda Centre for Rural Health, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Clara Rodriguez RibasHealth Emergencies Program, World Health Organisation, Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9832-4796
Theadora Swift KollerDepartment for Gender, Equity and Human Rights, Director General's Office, World Health Organization, Headquarters, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5655-7690
Taryn YoungDivision of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Global Health, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2406-081X

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review used the Arksey and O'Malley approach to explore COVID-19 preparedness and response in rural and remote areas to identify lessons to inform future health preparedness and response planning. A search of scientific and grey literature for rural COVID-19 preparedness and responses identified 5 668 articles published between 2019 and early 2022. A total of 293 articles were included, of which 160 (54.5%) were from high income countries and 106 (36.2%) from middle income countries. Studies focused mostly on the Maintenance of Essential Health Services (63; 21.5%), Surveillance, epidemiological investigation, contact tracing and adjustment of public health and social measures (60; 20.5%), Coordination and Planning (32; 10.9%); Case Management (30; 10.2%), Social Determinants of Health (29; 10%) and Risk Communication (22; 7.5%). Rural health systems were less prepared and national COVID-19 responses were often not adequately tailored to rural areas. Promising COVID-19 responses involved local leaders and communities, were collaborative and multisectoral, and engaged local cultures. Non-pharmaceutical interventions were applied less, support for access to water and sanitation at scale was weak, and more targeted approaches to the isolation of cases and quarantine of contacts were preferable to blanket lockdowns. Rural pharmacists, community health workers and agricultural extension workers assisted in overcoming shortages of health professionals. Vaccination coverage was hindered by weaker rural health systems. Digital technology enabled better coordination, communication, and access to health services, yet for some was inaccessible. Rural livelihoods and food security were affected through disruptions to local labour markets, farm produce markets and input supply chains. Important lessons include the need for rural proofing national health preparedness and response and optimizing synergies between top-down planning with localised planning and coordination. Equity-oriented rural health systems strengthening and action on rural social determinants is essential to better prepare for and respond to future outbreaks.

Identifiers

PMID37967067
PMCPMC10651055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.