ArticleBMC health services research2025
Understanding vulnerability to flood-induced disasters: a comprehensive scoping review on at-risk individuals and evacuation challenges.
Article in BMC health services research, 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.
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
Flood-induced disasters are increasing in frequency and severity, with high-income countries (HICs) facing growing health, social, and operational challenges, particularly in managing and protecting vulnerable populations that are disproportionately affected. This scoping review, conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines, examined how vulnerability is defined, addressed, and operationalized in evacuation management during flood-induced disasters in HICs. A systematic search identified 98 peer-reviewed studies published between 2014 and 2025. The analysis revealed critical gaps and inconsistencies in how vulnerability is conceptualized and applied in evacuation contexts. Several groups-including single-parent households, caregivers, individuals with mental health conditions, undocumented workers, and those facing linguistic or educational barriers-remain underrepresented, while others, such as informal caregivers, religious minorities, and victims of domestic abuse, are not addressed at all. The review also identified substantial variation in national approaches to vulnerability mapping and management, with most countries relying on fragmented and inconsistently integrated practices. Evidence linking vulnerability assessment to evacuation planning and sheltering decisions remains limited. Research on Flexible Surge Capacity and the use of Alternative Care Facilities for vulnerability-informed evacuation remains scarce, particularly regarding non-medical facilities as community-based hubs for rapid assessment and triage. Furthermore, few studies addressed continuity across the disaster timeline, linking pre-disaster vulnerability assessment, rapid needs assessment, and long-term recovery support. This review advances understanding of how vulnerability can be more effectively embedded in evacuation management, providing empirically grounded and comparative insights to inform inclusive, intersectional, and operational flood-induced disaster management strategies in HICs.
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.