ArticleGlobalization and health2024
Classifying disaster risk reduction strategies: conceptualizing and testing a novel integrated approach.
Article in Globalization and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough disaster risk reduction (DRR) addresses underlying causes and has been shown to be more cost-effective than other emergency management efforts, there is lack of systematized DRR categorization, leading to insufficient coherence in the terminology, planning, and implementation of DRR. The aim of this study was to conceptualize and test a novel integrated DRR framework that highlights the intersection between two existing classification systems.
methodsGrounded theory was used to conceptualize a novel DRR framework. Next, deductive conceptual content analysis was used to categorize interventions from the 2019 Cities100 Report into the proposed DRR framework. The term "connection" indicates that an intervention can be categorized into a particular section of the novel integrated approach. A "connection" was determined to be present when the intervention description stated an explicit connection to health and to the concept within one of the categories from the novel approach. Further descriptive statistics were used to give insight into the distribution of DRR interventions across categories and into the application of the proposed framework.
resultsThe resulting framework contains nine intersecting categories: "hazard, prospective", "hazard, corrective", "hazard, compensatory", "exposure, prospective", "exposure, corrective", "exposure, compensatory", "vulnerability, prospective", "vulnerability, corrective", and "vulnerability, compensatory". The thematic analysis elucidated trends and gaps in the types of interventions used within the 2019 Cities100 Report. For instance, exposure-prospective, exposure-compensatory, and vulnerability-compensatory were the most under-utilized strategies, accounting for only 3% of the total interventions. Further descriptive statistics showed that upper middle-income countries favored "hazard, corrective" strategies over other DRR categories while lower middle-income countries favored "exposure, corrective" over other DRR strategies. Finally, European cities had the highest percentage of DRR connections (51.39%) compared to the maximum possible DRR connections, while African cities had the lowest percentage of DRR connections (22.22%).
conclusionsThe study suggests that the proposed DRR framework could potentially be used to systematically evaluate DRR interventions for missing elements, aiding in the design of more equitable and comprehensive DRR strategies.
Indexed as
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.