ArticleBMC public health2025
A scoping review of health risks and outcomes from disasters in the Republic of Korea.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisasters represent significant public health challenges, particularly for vulnerable populations. In the Republic of Korea, both natural and man-made disasters, exacerbated by urbanization and socioeconomic disparities, have exposed weaknesses in disaster preparedness and public health resilience. This scoping review examines health outcomes and associated risk factors from past disasters in Korea.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in the PubMed, DBpia, KISS, and RISS databases for studies published between April 2004 and April 2022, following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Eighty-three studies met the inclusion criteria. Data were analyzed using a narrative synthesis approach to distinguish direct and indirect health effects. Key outcomes were categorized into socioeconomic, physical, mental, social, and environmental risk factors.
resultsAmong the 83 reviewed studies, natural disasters accounted for 50.6% of the total, man-made disasters for 22.9%, and mass trauma events for 26.5%. Most studies (78.3%) focused on disaster survivors, with cross-sectional designs predominating (90.4%). Approximately half (51.8%) of the studies used primary data, with the remainder being based on secondary sources. Regression was the most common method for statistical analysis (75.9%). Frequently reported direct health outcomes included physical injuries such as fractures, burns, and respiratory issues, along with mental health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Natural disasters were particularly associated with physical injuries, while both natural and man-made disasters had a significant impact on mental health. Vulnerable groups-older adults, women, unmarried individuals, and those with lower socioeconomic status-faced disproportionate higher risk for both physical and mental health. Indirect health impacts such as heightened anxiety, emotional distress, and weakened social cohesion were common in economically disadvantaged and disaster-prone communities, in which recovery was further hindered due to limited access to healthcare and support services.
conclusionsThese findings highlight the need for strategies aimed at disaster risk reduction that prioritize health equity, integrate mental health services, and address environmental vulnerabilities. Future research should focus on longitudinal studies to track evolving health outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.