ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2025
Developing a conceptual framework for relief goods distribution during disasters: a multi-method qualitative study.
Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a framework for primary health care resilience in pandemic conditions for Iran.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2026Article
- Gaps and priority areas in psychosocial support for emergencies and disasters: a qualitative study in Iran.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNatural disasters and crises persistently affect human societies, often resulting in substantial loss of life and property. A major challenge during such events is the rapid and efficient distribution of relief goods to affected populations. This study aims to develop a Relief Goods Distribution Conceptual Framework (RGDCF) during disasters in Iran.
methodsThis study was conducted in four phases. In the first phase, a comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify challenges in the distribution of relief goods and strategies for improvement. The second phase involved semi-structured interviews with national experts and stakeholders to examine the characteristics and requirements of an appropriate distribution framework for relief goods. In the third phase, drawing on the findings from the previous phases and expert panel discussions, an initial RGDCF was developed. Finally, in the fourth phase, the Delphi technique was employed to validate the proposed framework.
resultsA review of 18 studies identified key challenges in the distribution of relief goods, including lack of coordination among responsible authorities, needs assessment problems, damage to infrastructure, financial challenges and management of public donations, lack of local community participation, weakness in disaster preparedness, and shortage of trained personnel. The RGDCF was developed, based on four core principles: pre-disaster preparedness, unified command and management, intersectoral coordination, and community engagement, with 15 operational requirements aimed at improving distribution efficiency and equity. The developed framework received an acceptable score in terms of its feasibility, alignment with higher-level documents, stakeholder acceptance, and flexibility.
conclusionThe RGDCF offers a comprehensive approach to addressing the challenges in relief goods distribution, ensuring more efficient and equitable humanitarian response. Its feasibility, alignment with existing policies, and stakeholder acceptance highlight its potential for practical implementation, as well as providing a structured basis for monitoring, evaluating, and improving relief operations in disaster management.
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.