ReviewThe journal of climate change and health
Health system strategies for adaptation to drought: A global scoping review.
Review in The journal of climate change and health. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Drought poses substantial risks to population health and to the capacity, continuity, and performance of health systems. This scoping review aimed to systematically identify, map, and categorize the available evidence on health-system adaptation strategies for drought and to highlight major gaps in the evidence base. Methods: Following JBI guidance for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline, Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, and selected gray-literature sources were searched without date restrictions up to March 2025. Two reviewers independently screened records and full-text sources against predefined eligibility criteria. Data were charted using a standardized form and analyzed through inductive qualitative content analysis and thematic categorization. Critical appraisal was conducted to describe the methodological characteristics of the included evidence and support cautious interpretation; appraisal findings were not used as exclusion criteria. Results: Of the 7,334 records identified, 36 evidence sources met the eligibility criteria and were included. The evidence base comprised peer-reviewed studies and reviews, a book chapter, an institutional report, and gray-literature documents. Thematic categorization identified ten domains: assessment and monitoring; mental health and social support; water-resource management; food security and agriculture; health-infrastructure resilience; intersectoral coordination and governance; education and awareness; emergency response and crisis management; innovation and technology; and economic support and policy. Conclusion: This review provides a structured map of reported health-system adaptation strategies for drought and demonstrates the breadth and multidimensional nature of the available evidence. However, evidence regarding implementation, effectiveness, scalability, and applicability in low-resource settings remains limited.
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.