ArticleBMC women's health2026
Beyond the floodwaters: women's multidimensional vulnerability to flood disasters - a scoping review.
Article in BMC women's 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFlood disasters, intensified by climate change, are increasing in frequency and severity globally, disproportionately affecting vulnerable populations, particularly women. Women's vulnerability during flood disasters extends beyond biological or physical differences and is shaped by broader social, economic, cultural, and institutional conditions. However, synthesised evidence on women's vulnerabilities in flood contexts remains limited.
methodsA scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science (WoS), and Scopus databases identified 19 studies published between 2020 and 2024 that met the predefined inclusion criteria. Studies were eligible if they examined women's vulnerabilities in the context of flood disasters and were original peer-reviewed articles. Data were extracted and analysed thematically to identify patterns and relationships among factors contributing to women's vulnerabilities.
resultsFive interacting vulnerability domains were identified: physical (including sexual and reproductive health), social, psychological, economic, and environmental. Evidence across studies indicated that these domains are influenced by broader structural conditions such as gender norms, governance exclusion, and socioeconomic inequality, which may interact across exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to shape compounded gendered flood impacts. In addition, findings highlighted cross-domain patterns of adaptive capacity, where women employed context-specific strategies to respond to constrained conditions. Based on this synthesis, a conceptual framework was developed to illustrate how structural conditions relate to vulnerability processes, adaptive responses, and disaster outcomes.
conclusionWomen's vulnerability to flood disasters reflects a complex interplay of multidimensional risks shaped by gendered roles, socioeconomic disadvantage, limited resource access, and gaps in disaster planning and response. While caregiving responsibilities and health risks increase direct exposure, structural constraints may limit coping and recovery capacity. At the same time, adaptive capacity is actively expressed but often constrained and underrecognised within formal disaster systems. The proposed framework positions gender as a cross-cutting determinant and offers a conceptual lens for identifying policy entry points for gender-responsive disaster risk reduction.
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.