Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38448855›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2024

Mineral wealth paradox: health challenges and environmental risks in African resource-rich areas.

Emmanuel Adu Sarfo, Rabbi Tweneboah

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

2 authors.

Emmanuel Adu SarfoFaculty of Economic Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya Street, 101000, Moscow, Russia.
Rabbi TweneboahFaculty of Economic Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics, 20 Myasnitskaya Street, 101000, Moscow, Russia. rtveneboakh@edu.hse.ru.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAfrica is blessed with vast arable land and enriched with valuable natural resources encompassing both renewable (like water, forests, and fisheries) and non-renewable (such as minerals, coal, gas, and oil). Under the right conditions, a natural resource boom should serve as an important driver for growth, development, and the transition from cottage industry to factory output. However, despite its wealth, Africa is often associated with the notion of a resource curse. Negative outcomes are often linked with mineral wealth. This paper investigates the causes of adverse health outcomes in resource-rich regions. The study provides empirical support for the natural resource curse with particular emphasis on the environmental health risks in Africa. We explore the multifaceted connections among mineral deposits, environmental risks, conflict events and population dynamics, shedding light on the complexities of resource-rich areas.

resultsWe amalgamate georeferenced data pertaining to 22 specific mineral deposits with information on the prevalence of reliance on compromised infrastructures at a spatial resolution of 0.5

conclusionThe study contributes to the discourse on sustainable development by unraveling the nuanced associations between mineral wealth and health challenges. By drawing attention to the intricate web of factors at play, we provide a foundation for targeted interventions that address the unique environmental and health challenges faced by mineral-rich communities.

Indexed as

Black PeopleMineralsAfricaHumansParticulate MatterWaterMineralsParticulate MatterWaterEnvironmental health risksIn-migrationMineral depositMining activitiesOnshore petroleum fieldViolent events

Identifiers

PMID38448855
PMCPMC11334305

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.