Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-wpx69 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T08:30:17.917Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Information for Action? Analysis of 2005 South Asian Earthquake Reports Posted on Reliefweb

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2013

Johan von Schreeb ,
Jaswinder K. Legha ,
Niklas Karlsson  and
Richard Garfield
Johan von Schreeb*
Affiliation:
Dr von Schreeb is with the Division of Global Health, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Jaswinder K. Legha
Affiliation:
Dr Legha is with the Department of Medicine. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY
Niklas Karlsson
Affiliation:
Mr Karlsson, at the time of the study, was with the Division of Global Health, Department of Public Health Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Richard Garfield
Affiliation:
Dr Garfield is with the Schools of Nursing and Public Health, Columbia University, New York.
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Johan von Schreeb, MD, PhD, Division of International Health IHCAR, Nobels väg 9 Karolinska Institutet, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail [email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Following a sudden-onset disaster (SOD), rapid information is needed. We assessed the relevance of information available for relief planning on a main Internet portal following a major SOD.

Methods

We reviewed all information posted on the Reliefweb Web site in the first 7 days following the 2005 South Asian earthquake using a predeveloped registration form focusing on essential indicators. These data were compared with Pakistani government figures posted by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters.

Results

A total of 820 reports were reviewed. More reports came from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs; 35%) than any other source. A total of 42% of reports addressed only national level information, while 32% specified information at the provincial level. Fewer than 12% of all reports discussed the earthquake at the more local division and district levels. Only 13 reports provided pre-earthquake estimates of the number of people living in the affected areas. A third of all reports cited a common figure of 2.5 million made homeless. These were lower than official figures of 5 million homeless. A total of 43% reported on the estimated number of deaths. The estimated number peaked on day 4 at 40 000. All of these reports were lower than official data, which reported 73 000 deaths in total.

Conclusion

Early reports heavily underestimated the number of affected, homeless, injured, and dead. Many reports repeated information provided from previous unnamed sources rather than providing unique contributions from eyewitness reports or from contextual information based on previous work in the area. Better information on predisaster essential indicators should be available and used in combination with post-SOD information to better adapt humanitarian relief and funding according to needs. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2013;7:251-256)

Keywords

sudden-onset disasterhumanitarianneeds assessmentearthquake
Type
Original Research
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 251 - 256
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Malilay, J. Public health assessments in disaster settings: recommendations for a multidisciplinary approach. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2000;15(4):167-172.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Redmond, AD, WHO. Needs assessment of humanitarian crises. BMJ. 2005;330(7503):1320-1322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.von Schreeb, J. Needs Assessments for International Humanitarian Health Assistance in Disasters [thesis] Stockholm, Sweden: Karolinska Institutet; 2007.Google Scholar
4. Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative meeting, Stockholm, Sweden June 2003. 2007. Strengthening needs-based allocation: next steps for GHD donors. http://www.goodhumanitariandonorship.org/documents/ghd_update_april_2007.doc. Accessed October 7, 2009.Google Scholar
5.Mock, N, Garfield, R. Health tracking for improved humanitarian performance. Prehosp DisasterMed. 2007;22(5):377-383.Google Scholar
6. Sphere. Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in disaster response Web site. http://www.sphereproject.org/. Accessed October 7, 2009.Google Scholar
7. Standardized Monitoring Assessment of Relief and Transition Web site. http://www.smartindicators.org/. Accessed October 7, 2009.Google Scholar
8.Garfield, R, Skinner, P. A review of the quality of data on agency websites. Humanitarian Practice Network. http://www.odihpn.org/report.asp?id=2906. Accessed September 30, 2010.Google Scholar
9.Garfield, R. Measuring humanitarian emergencies. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2007;1(2):110-116.Google Scholar
10. EM-DAT. The International Disaster Database. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters Web site. http://www.emdat.be/. Accessed March 30, 2010.Google Scholar
11. Health and Nutrition Tracking Service Web site. http://www.thehnts.org/en/home2. Accessed October 7, 2009.Google Scholar
12.Mills, EJ, Checchi, F, Orbinski, JJ, etal. Users’ guides to the medical literature: how to use an article about mortality in a humanitarian emergency. Confl Health. 2008;2:9.Google Scholar