ArticleBMC emergency medicine2025
Drinking water supply for communities affected by natural disaster emergencies: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bibliometric analysis of scientific research development on drinking water supply in natural disaster-affected areas.Journal of education and health promotion · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnsuring access to safe drinking water is vital for reducing health risks and strengthening disaster resilience. In water-scarce Iran, where natural disasters further strain resources, water supply experts play a key role in crisis management. Their firsthand experience across diverse regions provides valuable insights. Despite extensive research on emergency water management, this qualitative study explores key dimensions for optimizing drinking water provision to disaster-affected areas and centers by leveraging their expertise in real disaster scenarios.
methodsThis study used a qualitative design with conventional content analysis. Data were collected through purposive sampling with maximum variation until saturation was reached, involving participants with academic and practical experience in water supply management during natural disasters. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews from March to September 2024 and analyzed using Graneheim and Lundman approach. The transcripts were processed using MAXQDA software (version 2020). To ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings, the study followed Lincoln and Guba's criteria, including credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability.
resultsAfter analyzing the interviews, 509 initial codes were extracted and grouped into 84 subcategories, 24 categories, and four main themes. These four themes include: prevention and reduction of water supply challenges, covering risk assessment, and legal requirements and standards; preparedness for an optimal response, involving planning, coordination and organization, and training and empowerment; reactive measures namely readiness and initial assessment, and emergency training for the public; and optimal recovery, which focuses on reconstruction, and knowledge management.
conclusionsThis study identifies critical factors for enhancing emergency water supply during natural disasters. The proposed innovative measures in this study include equipping emergency water extraction taps on main pipelines, considering the social characteristics of geographic areas in emergency water supply planning, and the crucial role of community participation in water management before and after disasters. These findings can help policymakers and water resource managers develop effective regulations and training programs to enhance disaster preparedness and response.
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.