Search

As extreme weather events increase in frequency and intensity, the health system faces significant challenges, not only from shifting patterns of climate-sensitive diseases but also from disruptions to healthcare infrastructure, supply chains and the physical systems essential for delivering care. This necessitates the strategic use of geospatial tools to guide the delivery of healthcare services and make evidence-informed priorities, especially in contexts with scarce human and financial resources. In this article, we highlight several published papers that have been used throughout the phases of the disaster management cycle in relation to health service delivery. We complement the findings from these publications with a rapid scoping review to present the body of knowledge for using spatial methods for health service delivery in the context of disasters. The main aim of this article is to demonstrate the benefits and discuss the challenges associated with the use of geospatial methods throughout the disaster management cycle. Our scoping review identified 48 articles employing geospatial techniques in the disaster management cycle. Most of them focused on geospatial tools employed for preparedness, anticipatory action and mitigation, particularly for targeted health service delivery. We note that while geospatial data analytics are effectively deployed throughout the different phases of disaster management, important challenges remain, such as ensuring timely availability of geospatial data during disasters, developing standardized and structured data formats, securing pre-disaster data for disaster preparedness, addressing gaps in health incidence data, reducing underreporting of cases and overcoming limitations in spatial and temporal coverage and granularity. Overall, existing and novel geospatial methods can bridge specific evidence gaps in all phases of the disaster management cycle. Improvement and 'operationalization' of these methods can provide opportunities for more evidence-informed decision making in responding to health crises during climate change.

Introduction: In the past decade, global health research has seen a growing emphasis on research integrity and fairness. The concept of research integrity emerged in response to the reproducibility crisis in science during the late 2000s. Research fairness initiatives aim to enhance ownership and inclusivity in research involving partners with varying powers, decision-making roles and resource capacities, ultimately prioritising local health research needs. Despite extensive academic discussions, empirical data on these aspects, especially in the context of global health, remain limited., Methods: To address this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study focusing on research integrity and fairness. The study included an online frequency survey and in-depth key informant interviews with researchers from international research networks. The dual objectives were to quantify the frequency of practices related to research integrity and fairness and explore the determinants influencing these practices in global health., Results: Out of 145 participants in the quantitative survey (8.4% response rate), findings indicate that global health researchers generally adhere to principles of research integrity and fairness, with variations in reported behaviours. The study identified structural, institutional and individual factors influencing these patterns, including donor landscape rigidity, institutional investments in relationship building, guidelines, mentoring and power differentials among researchers., Conclusion: This research highlights that, despite some variations, there is a substantial alignment between research integrity and fairness, with both sharing similar determinants and the overarching goal of enhancing research quality and societal benefits. The study emphasises the potential to explicitly recognise and leverage these synergies, aligning both agendas to further advance global health research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)