Health Workforce Development in Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management: The Need for Evidence-Based Recommendations

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 placed human health at the centre of disaster risk reduction, calling for the global community to enhance local and national health emergency and disaster risk management (Health EDRM). The Health EDRM Framework, published in 2019, describes the functions required for comprehensive disaster risk management across prevention, preparedness, readiness, response, and recovery to improve the resilience and health security of communities, countries, and health systems. Evidence-based Health EDRM workforce development is vital. However, there are still significant gaps in the evidence identifying common competencies for training and education programmes, and the clarification of strategies for workforce retention, motivation, deployment, and coordination. Initiated in June 2020, this project includes literature reviews, case studies, and an expert consensus (modified Delphi) study. Literature reviews in English, Japanese, and Chinese aim to identify research gaps and explore core competencies for Health EDRM workforce training. Thirteen Health EDRM related case studies from six WHO regions will illustrate best practices (and pitfalls) and inform the consensus study. Consensus will be sought from global experts in emergency and disaster medicine, nursing, public health and related disciplines. Recommendations for developing effective health workforce strategies for low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries will then be disseminated.

Related collections

Most cited references 69

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

0 comments Cited 6950 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Zachary Munn, Micah D J Peters, Cindy Stern … (2018)

Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

0 comments Cited 2035 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Micah D.J. Peters, Christina M Godfrey, Hanan Khalil … (2015)

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

0 comments Cited 1902 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Paul B. Tchounwou: Role: Academic Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Int J Environ Res Public Health

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Int J Environ Res Public Health

Journal ID (publisher-id): ijerph

Title: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Publisher: MDPI

ISSN (Print): 1661-7827

ISSN (Electronic): 1660-4601

Publication date (Electronic): 24 March 2021

Publication date Collection: April 2021

Volume: 18

Issue: 7

Electronic Location Identifier: 3382

Affiliations

[1 ]Accident and Emergency Medicine Academic Unit, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; kevin.hung@ 123456cuhk.edu.hk (K.K.C.H.); emily.chan@ 123456cuhk.edu.hk (E.Y.Y.C.); makikokato@ 123456cuhk.edu.hk (M.K.M.); jwallinemd@ 123456gmail.com (J.H.W.)

[2 ]Collaborating Centre for Oxford University and Chinese University of Hong Kong for Disaster and Medical Humanitarian Response (CCOUC), School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China; cswong@ 123456cuhk.edu.hk

[3 ]Research Institute of Nursing Care for People and Community, University of Hyogo, Akashi 673-8588, Japan; sonoe_mashino@ 123456cnas.u-hyogo.ac.jp

[4 ]Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02115, USA; SBalsari@ 123456bidmc.harvard.edu (S.B.); gciotton@ 123456bidmc.harvard.edu (G.R.C.); ahart1@ 123456bidmc.harvard.edu (A.H.)

[5 ]Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA

[6 ]Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, USA

[7 ]CRIMEDIM—Center for Research and Training in Disaster Medicine, Humanitarian Aid and Global Health, Università del Piemonte Orientale, 28100 Novara, Italy; francesco.dellacorte@ 123456med.uniupo.it (F.D.C.); marcelo.dellaringa@ 123456uniupo.com (M.F.D.); luca.ragazzoni@ 123456med.uniupo.it (L.R.)

[8 ]Division of International Cooperation for Disaster Medicine, International Research Institute of Disaster Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University, Miyagi 980-0845, Japan; egawas@ 123456surg.med.tohoku.ac.jp (S.E.); hsasa@ 123456surg.med.tohoku.ac.jp (H.S.)

[9 ]College of Nursing, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila 1000, Philippines; bdevio@ 123456up.edu.ph

[10 ]Emergency Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, China; whowasyoung@ 123456hotmail.com

[11 ]Department of Educational and Support for Regional Medicine, Tohoku University Hospital, Miyagi 980-8574, Japan; t-ishi23@ 123456med.tohoku.ac.jp

[12 ]PhD Scholar at International PhD in Global Health, Humanitarian Aid and Disaster Medicine Jointly Organized by Università del Piemonte Orientale (UPO) and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), 28100 Novara, Italy; hkrishnabhattarai@ 123456gmail.com

[13 ]World Health Organization Country Office, New Delhi 110011, India; sdalal@ 123456who.int

[14 ]World Health Organization Centre for Health Development, Kobe 651-0073, Japan; kayanor@ 123456who.int

[15 ]Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience Unit, Health Security Preparedness Department, WHO Health Emergencies Programme, World Health Organization, CH-1211 Geneva, Switzerland; abrahamsj@ 123456who.int

Author notes

[* ]Correspondence: cagraham@ 123456cuhk.edu.hk ; Tel.: +852-350-510-33

Author information

Kevin K. C. Hung https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8706-7758

Emily Y. Y. Chan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8854-5093

Francesco Della Corte https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1736-2318

Luca Ragazzoni https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2528-4375

Hiroyuki Sasaki https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0042-7683

Joseph H. Walline https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9582-1044

Ryoma Kayano https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0973-1080

Colin A. Graham https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4381-7470

Article

Publisher ID: ijerph-18-03382

DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18073382

PMC ID: 8037083

PubMed ID: 33805225

SO-VID: e85b375d-5774-4766-8bdf-899c39de061d

License:

Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Health Workforce Development in Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management: The Need for Evidence-Based Recommendations

Read this article at

Abstract

Related collections

Hurricanes: Open Access

Most cited references 69

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 184

Cited by 10

Most referenced authors 910