ArticleBMC public health2026
Scoping review of early warning systems in improving disaster risk outcomes: perspective from evolution to usage in Southeast Asian countries.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBetween 1970 and 2019, Asia-Pacific region experienced dramatic increase in climate and weather-related disasters, with a five-fold increase in frequency compared to previous decades. Early Warning Systems (EWS) play pivotal role in mitigating impacts of such disasters, with global estimates indicating potential savings of US $3–16 billion annually. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), effective EWS issued within 24 h can reduce disaster-related damage by 30%. However, limited evidence exists on the effectiveness and evolution of EWS in Southeast Asia. This scoping review aims to examine the development, components, and implementation of EWS in the region and assess their role in disaster risk reduction.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore, and reports from global agencies including Emergency Events Database, Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, World Resources Institute, and WMO. The inclusion criteria focused on English-language studies detailing design, implementation, or evaluation of EWS within Southeast Asian countries. Out of 3,039 initially identified records, 81 studies were selected and analyzed using descriptive synthesis.
resultsAsia-Pacific region remains the most disaster-prone area globally, impacting 6.9 billion people and causing over 2 million deaths between 1970 and 2020. In Southeast Asia alone, the average annual economic loss due to disasters is approximately US $86.5 billion, as reported in the Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2019. Since the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, substantial progress has been made in EWS development. The proportion of countries with multi-hazard EWS has risen from 25% in 2015 to 67% in 2023, facilitated by efforts such as the ESCAP Trust Fund and “Early Warnings for All” initiative.
conclusionThis review elucidates the evolution of early warning systems (EWS) in Southeast Asia since 2004, highlighting technical and institutional advances alongside persistent gaps in awareness, last-mile dissemination, and community preparedness. Key barriers—limited multi-channel alerts, weak policy integration, and exclusion of vulnerable groups—undermine effectiveness. By leveraging SMS, community networks, participatory drills, and global best practices for inclusivity, the region can foster responsive, equitable systems that achieve “early warnings for all” and substantially reduce disaster risk.
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.