ArticleJournal of global health2026
Ethics and methods in disaster health research: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of global 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
Background: Disaster medicine operates in unstable, high-risk environments where operational, ethical, and contextual constraints frequently undermine traditional research designs. Although global health agendas increasingly emphasise person- and patient-centred care (PCC), these principles remain poorly articulated and rarely operationalised within disaster research. We aimed to examine how ethical tensions and methodological limitations shape the current disaster health research evidence base and explore how PCC might be meaningfully integrated into research design and governance. Methods: We conducted a structured scoping review of peer-reviewed literature across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, focusing on research methodology, ethics, and evidence generation in disaster and humanitarian contexts. We thematically synthesised the extracted data. Results: We included 28 studies, identifying three cross-cutting thematic domains: ethical tensions related to participant vulnerability and governance in crisis settings; methodological constraints limiting the generation of robust, context-sensitive evidence; and inconsistent application of PCC principles. Conclusions: The evidence base for disaster medicine appears conceptually rich but structurally fragile. Ethical and methodological constraints suggest a critical gap in the operationalisation of PCC within disaster research. Advancing the field will likely require adaptive methodologies, context-responsive ethical oversight, and more explicit integration of person-centred principles into research design and evaluation, particularly in protracted crises and recovery settings where resilient systems must integrate health and social care. Registration: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3A8CZ.
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.