ArticleScientific reports2025
The modification of risk assessment ranking when considering the female population and children in the INFORM risk index for selected countries.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The INFORM (Index for Risk Management) identifies risk hotspots by assessing Hazard and Exposure, Vulnerability, and Coping capacity across 76 indicators. However, the original index may have overlooked the specific vulnerabilities of women and children, even within the vulnerable group in emergencies. This study recalibrated the index by redefining key indicators to better reflect risks for these groups. INFORM Index Risk formulation is "Risk = Hazard and Exposure 1/3 x Vulnerability 1/3 x Lack of coping capacity 1/3' resulted in a total score ranging from 0 to 10, with the higher score being the higher risk. We recalibrated the 2024 INFORM Risk formula by adjusting for female and child (ages 0-14) populations in 67 countries across the Eastern Mediterranean, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. We categorized the 76 metrics as (1) those with gender-disaggregated data, (2) those adaptable for specific populations using literature, and (3) generalized indicators needing no adjustment. Shifts in risk classifications were noted among 67 countries. Initially, 13 countries (19.4%) were at 'very high' risk, and 18 (26.9%) were at 'high' risk. After recalibration, 52 countries (77.6%) showed score changes from 0.1 to 0.6 points. Six countries moved from 'high' to 'very high' risk, raising this class to 19 (28.3%). The paired t-test revealed a statistically significant difference between the original and recalibrated risk scores (mean difference = -0.17, 95% CI: -0.20, -0.13, p < 0.001). The difference in Vulnerability scores (mean difference = -0.32; 95% CI: -0.44, -0.21; p-value < 0.000) and Coping capacity (mean difference = -0.18; 95% CI: -0.23, -0.12; p-value < 0.000) were significant, derived changes in the INFORM Risk Index. The recalibrated INFORM index highlights that accurate, disaggregated data is crucial for understanding the specific needs of vulnerable populations, enabling more informed decision-making in risk management and resilience planning.
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.