
==== Front
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health
1471-2458
BioMed Central London

19523
10.1186/s12889-024-19523-5
Systematic Review
Components and entities of post-disaster damage and loss assessment program in healthcare sector: a scoping review
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1464-6788
Miri Javad 1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3290-2765
Atighechian Golrokh 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5614-4052
Seyedin Hesam 3
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8588-4340
Raeisi Ahmad Reza raeisi@mng.mui.ac.ir

4
1 https://ror.org/04waqzz56 grid.411036.1 0000 0001 1498 685X Student Research Committee, School of Management and Medical Information Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 https://ror.org/04waqzz56 grid.411036.1 0000 0001 1498 685X Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 https://ror.org/042hptv04 grid.449129.3 0000 0004 0611 9408 Department of Health in Disaster and Emergencies, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 https://ror.org/04waqzz56 grid.411036.1 0000 0001 1498 685X Health Management and Economics Research Center, Department of Health Services Management, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
5 9 2024
5 9 2024
2024
24 241725 3 2024
18 7 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it.The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

Disasters can cause casualties and significant financial loss. In accordance with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, areas affected by disasters must be built back better. Accurate post-disaster damage and loss assessments are critical for the success of recovery programs. This scoping review aimed to identify the components and entities of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program.

Methods

An comprehensive search for relevant literature was performed using several databases, including the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, and Magiran. The search was limited to papers published between 2010 and 2022. In addition, we searched the grey literature for resources related to post-disaster damage and loss assessments. Study selection and data extraction were evaluated by a third reviewer. The main themes were determined through a consensus process and agreement among team members.

Results

A total of 845 papers were identified, 41 of which were included in the review. The grey literature search yielded 1015 documents, 23 of which were associated with the study’s purpose. The findings were classified into five main themes, 20 subthemes, and 876 codes. The main-themes include the following: Concepts and Definitions; Post-Disaster Damage and Loss Assessment Procedures; Healthcare sector procedures; Assessments Tools, and Methods; Intra-sectoral, Inter-sectoral, and cross-cutting issues.

Conclusions

The existing corpus of literature on post-disaster damage and loss assessment programs within the healthcare sector offers only limited insights into the entities and components involved. It is of great importance that stakeholders have an extensive grasp of these pivotal concepts and principles, as they are fundamental in enabling effective responses to disasters, informed decision-making, and facilitating rehabilitation and reconstruction efforts. Consequently, there is a considerable scope for further investigation in this area.

Scoping review registration number

https://osf.io/nj3fk.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-024-19523-5.

Keywords

Disasters
Damage
Loss
Assessment
Healthcare sector
Health planning
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

The most significant consequences of disasters are health impacts that occur in the aftermath [1]. Natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods not only have a detrimental impact on an individual’s health but also result in significant damage to the healthcare sector, reducing its capacity to respond and recover effectively. This, in turn, leads to a rise in mortality and morbidity rates [2, 3]. Disasters directly damage the physical structure of hospitals, clinics, and healthcare centers and indirectly affect the health sector by destroying community infrastructure, such as water, electricity, fuel, transportation, and communication systems. Additionally, disasters can impact healthcare providers and their families [4, 5].

Providing essential health services is challenging during disasters because of infrastructure failure and the inefficiency of healthcare centres [6]. It is evident that the health centres play a pivotal role in alleviating the negative consequences that arise in the aftermath of disasters. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to ensure the uninterrupted functioning of this vital infrastructures [7–9]. Comprehending the health consequences of disasters provides the basis for identifying demands, improving capacity, and providing opportunities for reconstruction and future disaster risk reduction [10].

The convergence of four seminal accords on disaster risk reduction, development finance, sustainable development, and climate change at the end of 2015 presented a singularly promising opportunity to achieve coherence across related policy domains. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction represents the global policy framework of the United Nations from 2015 to 2030. This represents a significant advance in global policy coherence concerning health, development, and climate change [11–13]. One of the principal objectives of the Sendai Framework is to enhance disaster preparedness for an effective response and “build back better“(BBB) in recovery [14].

The scope of disaster recovery is broader than that of response. In the context of the health system, recovery is defined as the reconstruction, restoration, and upgrading of the components of a country’s health sector and the main functions of public health, in accordance with the BBB principle and the goals of sustainable development [15]. For an optimal reconstruction, it is necessary to develop a legal, technical, and comprehensive framework. The success of a reconstruction program depends on an accurate assessment of the damage, loss, and needs of the post-disaster area to determine the approaches, goals, priorities, and measures required for reconstruction [2].

The post-disaster reconstruction of the health system in developing countries is hindered by some factors, including a lack of knowledge and expertise, limited budget and planning, political competition, fraud, and embezzlement or misuse of social benefits [3, 16]. Considering the argument of ‘humanitarian ignorance’, In light of the argument put forth by scholars who refer to this phenomenon as “humanitarian ignorance,“ [17], it can be argued that this “knowledge” does exist and that it is purposeful ignorance of said knowledge.

In 2008, the European Union, World Bank, and United Nations Development Group implemented a standard post-disaster assessment approach and developed a comprehensive and collaborative post-disaster assessment program [18]. In damage and loss assessments, experts in each sector calculate post-disaster damage and loss, which are essential in reconstruction programs [19, 20].

Chapin et al. (2009) studied the impact of the 2007 Ica earthquake on healthcare facilities in southern Peru. They reported that after an earthquake of magnitude 7.9 in Peru, 60% of the health centers in the region were affected to the degree that they were unable to provide client services. This study revealed that reports of damage assessments in a single disaster were sometimes not the same [21]. Achour et al. (2020) evaluated hospital performance after the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake in Japan. Data analysis revealed that the impaired function of some healthcare centers in the affected areas significantly affected the health needs of the local communities [22].

Similar to other social sectors, the disaster impacts on the healthcare sector is considerable and is one of the concerns of managers and experts in the healthcare sector. In light of the pivotal role of the health sector in post-disaster response and recovery, as well as in the development of a post-disaster reconstruction program, it is crucial to conduct a thorough assessment of damage and losses incurred following a disaster. A post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the health sector can serve as a foundation for the creation of a coherent and integrated framework for health reconstruction. The absence of a post-disaster damage and loss assessment program may result in certain requirements being overlooked, the results of which are not deemed acceptable, facilities being allocated on a non-prioritized basis, and there being no basis for monitoring the implementation of plans and activities. Assessment is a demanding and decisive management task that is effective in decision-making, planning, monitoring, handling a program, and taking coherent actions. Post-disaster damage and loss assessment has a direct impact on decision-making, planning, monitoring of responses, and the implementation of recovery operations. Consequently, these assessments must be purposeful and scheduled.

Review objective and research questions

This scoping review was conducted to identify the entities and components of post-disaster damage and loss assessment programs in the healthcare sector. The PCC framework, which includes the participants, concepts, and context recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute, was used to develop the research question [23]. The research question for this scoping review is as follows: what information is available about the entities and components of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program?

Methods

A knowledge gap exists in the field of post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the healthcare sector. To address this issue, the most appropriate methodology for achieving the study’s objective was identified as a scoping review. This systematic scoping review was conducted under the proposed Joanna Briggs Institute method [24]. The study included the following steps: defining and aligning the research objectives and questions, developing the inclusion and exclusion criteria, describing the planned approach to the evidence search, study selection, data extraction, presentation of the evidence, searching for evidence, selecting the evidence, extracting the evidence, analyzing the evidence, presenting the results, and summarizing the evidence [23]. The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework on 4 June 2022 [25] and was published in BMJ Open [26]. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR Checklist 1) [27] checklist was used to report the results of this scoping review.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

In keeping with the scoping review methodology, our inclusion criteria (Table 1) were broad, and our search was comprehensive in capturing the entities and components of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program. We included literature reviews, primary empirical articles, case studies, opinion pieces, and editorials published in English or Persian “due to geographical focus, and researcher language skills”. In addition, grey literature related to the study objective, including dissertations, organizational documents, post-disaster assessment reports, and guidelines, was searched and reviewed. Table 2 presents a distribution of studies by location, organization, and document type.

Table 1 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Category	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria	
Context	post-disaster		
Concept	Healthcare sector, Damage and loss assessment, Disasters consequences	All other concepts	
Types of evidence source	Peer-reviewed publications, grey literature, governmental reports, policy documents	Editorials/commentaries, letters, conference abstracts	
Publication year	Publication years 2010–2022	Before 2010 and after the updated search	
Language	English or Persian language	All other languages	

Table 2 Distribution of studies by location, by organisation and by type of document

NO	Year	Location/publisher	Type/method	
1	2021	IRAN	Policy document	
2	2019	IRAN	Policy document	
3	2014	ECLAC	Guideline	
4	2010	World Bank	Guideline	
5	2010	World Bank	Guideline	
6	2010	World Bank	Guideline	
7	2020	GFDRR	Guideline	
8	2017	World Bank	Guideline	
9	2010	UNDP	Guideline	
10	2014	ECLAC	Guideline	
11	2003	ECLAC	Guideline	
12	2020	WHO	Guideline	
13	2018	GRADE	Guideline	
14	2014	GRADE	Guideline	
15	2015	UNISDR	Guideline	
16	2013	GRADE	Guideline	
17	2018	INDIA	Book chapters	
18	2015	France	Original research	
19	2012	USA/Chile	Research Article	
20	2018	China	Original research	
21	2014	Iraq	Analytical Study	
22	2017	Haiti	Original research	
23	2017	Bangladesh/ Japan	literature review	
24	2014	Lithuania	Original research/Conference	
25	2019	Hungary/China	Original research	
26	2020	United States	systematic review	
27	2011	United States	Special Focus	
28	2021	Iran	Original research	
29	2020	USA	Review article	
30	2019	Nepal	Review article	
31	2020	Puerto Rico	Original Research	
32	2020	Pakistan	case study	
33	2019	Malaysia	Preliminary Study	
34	2012	China	Original research	
35	2015	EU	A Science and Policy Report	
36	2018	Nepal	Research Article	
37	2020	USA	Original research	
38	2014	Japan	Brief report	
39	2016	Japan	Original research	
40	2013	Iran	Retrospective Survey	
41	2012	Sweden	invited editorial	
42	2020	Iran	Research Article	
43	2015	Brazil	Descriptive study	
44	2013	UK	mix methods	
45	2017	Nepal	case study	
46	2018	Nepal	Lessons from the field	
47	2020	Japan	Research Paper	
48	2012	Iran	Grounded Theory	
49	2014	USA	Special report	
50	2017	Italy	Lessons Learnt	
51	2014	Japan	Original research	
52	2017	Japan	Brief report	
53	2013	USA	Special Article	
54	2012	New Zealand	Conference paper	
55	2012	New Zealand	Review	
56	2020	USA	Viewpoint	
57	2014	Japan	Brief report	
58	2011	Vietnam	Review	
59	2020	Albania	Report	
60	2020	Lebanon	Report	
61	2019	India/Odisha	Report	
62	2021	GAZA	Report	
63	2019	Iran	Report	
64	2015	Nepal	Report	
65	2015	USA	Thesis	

Search strategy

The search strategy was drafted with the help of an experienced informaticist librarian and was further refined through team discussion. Initially, a primary search was conducted on the Google Scholar, PubMed, World Bank, and PreventionWeb websites. The following concepts were extracted from the documents: post-conflict consequences in health systems, disaster impacts on the healthcare sector, post-disaster damage and loss assessment, post-earthquake hospital functionality, post-disaster damage and loss assessment, disaster damage, operational status of healthcare facilities during a hurricane, and the impacts of extreme events. An appropriate search strategy was used for each database (Table 3).

Table 3 Search strategy

Database	Search Syntax	results	
PubMed	((((Disaster*[Title/Abstract]) OR (“Disasters“[Mesh])) AND ((((“Health Care Sector“[Mesh]) OR “Health Care Facilities, Manpower, and Services“[Mesh]) OR (Health Care Facilities[Title/Abstract])) OR (Health Care Sector[Title/Abstract]))) AND (((Assessment[Title/Abstract]) AND (Damage[Title/Abstract])) AND (Loss[Title/Abstract]))) OR (((Conceptual model[Title/Abstract]) OR (Reconstruction[Title/Abstract])) AND (post-disaster[Title/Abstract])) AND ((2011:3000/12/12[pdat]) AND (English[Filter]))	61	
Web of Science	1= (((((((((TS= (Healthcare Sector)) OR TS= (Health Care Sectors)) OR TS= (Health Care System)) OR TS= (Healthcare System)) OR TS= (Healthcare Industry)) OR TS= (Health Care Industry)) OR TS= (Health Care Facilities)) OR TS= (Healthcare Facilities)) OR TS= (Healthcare Market)) AND (PY= (“2022” OR “2021” OR “2020” OR “2019” OR “2018” OR “2017” OR “2016” OR “2015” OR “2014” OR “2013” OR “2012” OR “2011” OR “2010”)) = 241718

2=((((TS=(Disaster*)) OR TS=(POST-conflict*)) OR TS=(Post-Disaster*)) OR TS= (Disaster impact)) OR TS= (Disaster consequence) and 2022 or 2021 or 2020 or 2019 or 2018 or 2017 or 2016 or 2015 or 2014 or 2013 or 2012 or 2011 or 2010 (Publication Years)) = 70,944

3=(((ALL=(Reconstruction)) OR ALL=(Damage)) OR ALL=(loss)) AND ALL=(Assessment) and 2022 or 2021 or 2020 or 2019 or 2018 or 2017 or 2016 or 2015 or 2014 or 2013 or 2012 or 2011 or 2010 (Publication Years) = 136,125

4= #3 AND #2 AND #1 = 41

	41	
ProQuest	TOPIC: (Damage and Loss Assessment) OR TOPIC: (Health Sector) OR TOPIC: (Disaster*) OR TOPIC: (Healthcare facilities*) OR TITLE: (Reconstruction) OR TOPIC: (Disaster impact) OR TOPIC: (Building Back Better) OR TOPIC: (Recovery) (Topic) Refined by: and Review Articles or Articles (Document Types) and 2019 or 2018 or 2020 or 2021 or 2017 (Publication Years) and Web of Science Core Collection or MEDLINE® (Database) and Health Care Sciences Services (Research Areas)	521	
Scopus	(TITLE-ABS-KEY (disaster*) AND KEY (damage) AND KEY (loss) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (healthcare AND facilities) AND KEY (planning*) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (impact) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (consequences)) AND PUBYEAR > 2011 AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”))	184	
Magiran	TOPIC: (Damage and Loss Assessment) OR TOPIC: (Health Sector) OR TOPIC: (Disaster*) OR TOPIC: (Healthcare facilities*) OR TITLE: (Reconstruction) OR TOPIC: (Disaster impact) OR TOPIC: (Building Back Better) OR TOPIC: (Recovery) (Topic) Refined by: and Review Articles or Articles (Document Types) and 2019 or 2018 or 2020 or 2021 or 2017 (Publication Years) and Web of Science Core Collection or MEDLINE® (Database) and Health Care Sciences Services (Research Areas)	152	

Study selection

We searched all English and Persian articles published from 2010 to 2022 on the Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Magiran databases. Our search started on 20 January 2022. The search results were imported into Endnote X9 software. After removing the duplicates, J. Miri checked all the remaining titles to remove unrelated documents. The titles and abstracts of the remaining articles were independently examined by two authors (J. Miri and A.R. Raeisi) to reach a common understanding of the selection criteria, discussion of disagreements, and definition of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The remaining articles were uploaded to Rayyan software to facilitate record screening. The full texts of articles whose abstracts did not meet the exclusion criteria or were ambiguous were reviewed. Discrepancies in inclusion or exclusion decisions were resolved through discussion (G. Atighechian). Finally, the reference lists were checked to identify relevant studies. In the grey literature search, researchers also investigated organizations’ websites related to disaster management, such as the UNDP, World Bank, UNDRR, International Recovery Platform, PreventionWeb, WHO, and FEMA. (Fig. 1)

Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram of the scoping review process.

Adapted from the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram from Page et al. [47].

Data extraction

Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 show the characteristics of the articles and grey literature discussed in this study. General information (title, authors, publication year, study location, and key findings) regarding the questions addressed in this scoping review was extracted from the selected studies. Two independent reviewers extracted all relevant information and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

Data analysis and presentation

The documents were organized and analyzed by the researchers using the MAXQDA 2020 software. The data analysis strategy employed at this juncture was a thematic analysis approach. Thematic analysis is a valuable approach for elucidating experiences, thoughts, or behaviors within a data set. Additionally, researchers have proposed that thematic analysis is an optimal analytical method for novice qualitative researchers due to its transparent and straightforward procedures [28, 29].

Results

The search of the related electronic databases led to the identification of 845 articles. After removing the duplicates, 826 studies remained. The titles were screened, and 102 potentially eligible articles were selected. The simultaneous title and abstract review by two independent reviewers led to the selection of 80 articles that were uploaded to Rayyan software. Finally, 41 articles were selected for full-text review. The grey literature search identified 1015 documents, reports, manuals, and guidelines based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the study objectives, and 23 documents were selected for review.

Researchers have classified resources into five categories: articles, books, dissertations, policy documents, and reports. Studies have been conducted in different countries, half of which have been published in the last five years. The findings were categorized into five main themes, 20 subthemes, and 876 codes according to the research objectives and questions. The main themes, subthemes, and some related codes are presented in (Table 4).

Table 4 The main themes, subthemes, and some relevant codes

Main-Themes	Subthemes	Some relevant codes	
Concepts and Definitions	Disaster	General concepts of disaster damage and loss	
Disaster classification	
Healthcare sector	Post-disaster background and conditions	
Healthcare sector performance	
Post-disaster consequences in the healthcare sector	
Post-disaster reconstruction	Managerial dimension	
Social dimension	
Physical dimension	
Damage and loss assessment	Recovery framework prerequisites for development	
Conduct damage and loss assessment	
Healthcare sector preparedness	Local personnel training	
Pre-disaster preparedness and agreement on assessment	
Business Continuity Plan for disaster	
limitations and challenges	Data collection in limited conditions	
Lack of suitable assessment teams	
Documents, plans, regulations and guidelines in Iran	National Disaster Management Strategy Document	
National reconstruction and rehabilitation program	
National preparedness and response program	
National Disaster Risk Reduction Program	
Post-Disaster Damage and Loss Assessment Procedures	Baseline information	Public information available	
Basic regional health information	
National and integrated disaster information system	
Post-disaster situations and performance	Post-disaster phases based on Sendai Framework	
Preparing field visits to affected areas	
Having a timeline for assessment	
Estimation of disaster effects	Post-disaster damage assessment	
Estimation of disaster impacts	Additional costs	
Increase in demand	
Public health interventions costs	
Estimation of post-disaster reconstruction requirements	Reconstruction needs estimate	
Recovery needs estimate	
Additional tips for disaster damage assessment	
Healthcare sector procedures	The recommended assessment team	Disaster damage and loss assessment organizations	
post-disaster damage and loss assessment team: The managerial structure	
Steps for conducting an assessment in the healthcare sector	Collect baseline information on sector assets and production	
Estimate value of damage and production flow changes	
Analyse the impacts of the damages and losses	
Assessments Tools, and Methods	Damage and loss assessment data application	Disaster forensics	
Disaster loss accounting	
Disaster loss compensation	
Damage and loss assessment tools	Geographical measurements	
Interview with stakeholders	
Reconnaissance missions	
Data Collection and processing	Information and communication	
Post-disaster damage assessment programs	Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA)	
Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDA)	
Multisectoral Initial Rapid Assessment (MIRA)	
Global rapid post-disaster Damage Estimation (GRADE)	
Intra-sectoral, Inter-sectoral, and cross-cutting issues	Post-disaster Sectoral assessment	Social sector	
Economic sectors	
Productive and Financial Sectors	
Cross-cutting Sectors	
Roles and responsibilities	
Coordination and collaboration	
healthcare sector recovery framework	Leadership and governance	
Service delivery	
Healthcare workforce	
Allocation of financial resources	

Discussion

This study provides a comprehensive perspective on post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the healthcare sector. To achieve a common understanding of post-disaster damage and loss assessment in the healthcare sector, the researchers first collected definitions and related concepts. Then, organized concepts related to damage and loss assessment teams, damage and loss assessment stages, data collection elements, assessment tools, and programs. The paper concludes with a discussion of the linkages between the healthcare sector and other sectors affected by disasters.

The health system comprises a wide range of organizations, institutions, groups, and individuals in governmental and nongovernmental sectors that policy, produce resources, finance, and provide health services to restore, promote, and maintain public health [30]. According to the WHO framework, the health system comprises six building blocks; service delivery, health workforce, information, medical products, vaccines and technologies, financing, leadership, and governance [31, 32]. The realization and promotion of community health and fair cooperation in providing resources are crucial goals of the health system and are considered fundamental in most countries [33].

The continuity of services is critical in some businesses, such as those in the healthcare sector. However, these trends can be disrupted by disasters [34]. Achour et al. (2020) evaluated hospital performance after the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake in Japan. The occurrence of this event resulted in a disruption to the continuity of healthcare services. The investigation revealed that the primary causes of the disruption were damage to the infrastructure, including buildings, critical systems, and medical equipment. The results of the study indicated a 15% reduction in healthcare functionality in the affected regions [22]. In the study by Gufue et al. (2024), the direct economic loss to the health system caused by war-related looting or vandalism in the Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia was quantified in excess of $511 million. The assessment revealed that 80.6% of health posts, 73.6% of health centres, 80% of primary hospitals, 83.3% of general hospitals and two specialized hospitals were damaged and/or vandalized either fully or in part due to the war [35]. Therefore, a disaster recovery plan in the healthcare sector is essential for providing necessary measures and minimizing disaster consequences, And international frameworks such as Sendai play an important role in this regard and emphasize the need to develop and implement measures for disaster risk reduction and vulnerability [36, 37].

For reconstruction, a reliable post-disaster damage and loss assessment method is required. The diversity of approaches and assessment-related outputs have led to various challenges. A significant obstacle to post-disaster damage and loss assessment is access to consistent, dependable, and detailed data on the impact of disasters. Establishing guidelines for reporting post-disaster damage and loss assessments is necessary to help national and regional institutions collect information in a structured manner [38]. Accurate data on disaster damage and losses are crucial for effective risk management, including loss accounting, disaster forensics, and risk analysis [39]. Assessment information is pivotal for effective policy development, resource allocation, and disaster preparedness [40]. We can improve disaster management and link disaster management science to disaster risk reduction policymaking by using these data [38].

In the Kermanshah Earthquake Lessons Learned study conducted by Khankeh et al. (2018) in Iran, it was recommended that a standard protocol be established for the receipt of reports from disaster locations in the initial days and weeks following an earthquake. Moreover, the establishment of rapid assessment teams at the local, regional, and national levels, with specific guidelines, was considered a crucial step [41]. The composition of the assessment team depends on the sector to be assessed. Healthcare sector assessment teams from different disciplines, including public health experts, physicians, epidemiologists, architects, civil engineers, and health economists, can estimate the value of production losses [18, 31, 42].

The post-disaster damage and loss assessment methodology includes pre-disaster baseline data collection, disaster effects, impact analysis, recovery needs estimation, and strategies that recommend appropriate interventions, implementation arrangements, and policies [43]. Documentation of damage and loss assessments should begin as soon as possible after a disaster [44]. A post-disaster damage and loss assessment report is a live document that is revised as better data become available [45]. Post-disaster damage and loss assessment reports should differ according to the assessment stage and type of disaster [46].

There is the fact that all societies and countries are susceptible to disasters. The primary responsibility for disaster and emergency management is affected by local communities and countries. After a disaster, the healthcare sector faces multiple hazards, limited resources for dealing with them, and high expectations regarding their performance. Multiple stakeholders engage in post-disaster damage and loss assessments and their interventions are guided by various damage and loss assessment methods. Such variations in techniques and related assessment outputs challenge the comparability across assessments and often present conflicting images. Despite the long history of reconstruction in Iran, there are numerous challenges in assessing post-disaster damage and loss. Therefore, there is a need to develop a set of post-disaster damage and loss assessment frameworks, including methodologies and guidelines, for the healthcare sector.

Limitation

Limited scientific resources for disaster damage assessment in the healthcare sector, access to imperative content, and documentation in the country were limitations of this study. As with all scoping reviews, we did not formally evaluate the quality of the evidence, and because of the varying nature of the studies, only a limited synthesis of results was possible.

Conclusion

In light of the pivotal role of the post-disaster healthcare sector, it is of the utmost importance to develop appropriate post-disaster damage and loss assessment programme that can be adapted to different socio-cultural contexts and varying resources. To date, there have been few studies that have discussed the entities and components of disaster damage and loss assessment programme in the healthcare sector. It was, however, determined that identifying the entities and components of the healthcare sector’s post-disaster damage and loss assessment program was a necessary step for advancing the healthcare sector in Iran. This review offers a detailed examination of post-disaster damage and loss assessment programs within the healthcare sector.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Acknowledgements

The authors express their gratitude to the Vice Chancellor for Research and Technology at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences for financial support.

Author contributions

J. Miri contributed to study design, title, abstract and full-text screening, data extraction, data analysis, writing the first draft of the manuscript, and subsequent revisions of the manuscript. A.R. Raeisi contributed to study design, literature search and project management. G. Atighechian was also involved in drafting the abstract, full-text screening, data extraction and writing the manuscript at all stages. H. Seyedin contributed to the study design and drafting of the manuscript. All authors critically revised the manuscript and approved the final version for submission.

Funding

This work was supported by the Vice-Chancellery of Research and Technology at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran [grant no. 3400686].

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Iran (IR.MUI.NUREMA.REC.1400.171).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Pourhosseini SS Ardalan A Mehrolhassani MH Key aspects of Providing Healthcare Services in Disaster Response Stage Iran J Public Health 2015 44 1 111 8 26060782
Pourhosseini SS, Ardalan A, Mehrolhassani MH. Key aspects of Providing Healthcare Services in Disaster Response Stage. Iran J Public Health. 2015;44(1):111–8.26060782
2. UNISDR. Guidance Note on Recovery: Health. 2010. https://www.undrr.org/publication/guidance-note-recovery-health.
3. World Health Organization. Regional Office for the Eastern M. Implementation guide for health systems recovery in emergencies: transforming challenges into opportunities. Cairo2020. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/336472.
4. Kimberley I, Shoaf SJR. Public Health Impact of Disasters: Australian Emergency Management Institute; 2000. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.369826620745919.
5. Shahpari G Ashena M Shahpari M How earthquakes can affect the Health Sector of the economy? Int J Economic Policy Emerg Economies 2021 14 1 85 100
Shahpari G, Ashena M, Shahpari M. How earthquakes can affect the Health Sector of the economy? Int J Economic Policy Emerg Economies. 2021;14(1):85–100.
6. Hatami H, Razavi M-MSM, Eftekhar Ardabili MD-MPHH, Majlesi MD-MPHF, Sayed Nozadi MD-MPHM, PhD M. J. Parizadeh. Textbook of Public Health 4th Edition: Arjmand publication; 2019. http://phs.sbmu.ac.ir/uploads/VOLUME_3.htm.
7. Ardagh MW Richardson SK Robinson V Than M Gee P Henderson S The initial health-system response to the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, in February, 2011 Lancet 2012 379 9831 2109 15 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60313-4 22510397
Ardagh MW, Richardson SK, Robinson V, Than M, Gee P, Henderson S, et al. The initial health-system response to the earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, in February, 2011. Lancet. 2012;379(9831):2109–15.22510397 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60313-4
8. Irvin-Barnwell EA Cruz M Maniglier-Poulet C Cabrera J Rivera Diaz J De La Cruz Perez R Evaluating disaster damages and operational status of Health-Care facilities during the emergency response phase of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico Disaster Med Pub Health Prep 2020 14 1 80 8 10.1017/dmp.2019.85 31658925
Irvin-Barnwell EA, Cruz M, Maniglier-Poulet C, Cabrera J, Rivera Diaz J, De La Cruz Perez R, et al. Evaluating disaster damages and operational status of Health-Care facilities during the emergency response phase of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. Disaster Med Pub Health Prep. 2020;14(1):80–8.31658925 10.1017/dmp.2019.85
9. Ochi S Kato S Kobayashi KI Kanatani Y The Great East Japan Earthquake: analyses of disaster impacts on Health Care clinics Disaster Med Public Health Prep 2018 12 3 291 5 10.1017/dmp.2017.82 28847343
Ochi S, Kato S, Kobayashi KI, Kanatani Y. The Great East Japan Earthquake: analyses of disaster impacts on Health Care clinics. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2018;12(3):291–5.28847343 10.1017/dmp.2017.82
10. United Nations Development Programme - Headquarters, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. International Recovery Platform. Guidance notes on recovery: health - Supplementary edition2017.
11. Carabine E. Revitalising evidence-based policy for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030: lessons from existing International Science partnerships. PLoS Curr. 2015;7.
12. Aitsi-Selmi A Egawa S Sasaki H Wannous C Murray V The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk reduction: renewing the global commitment to people’s resilience, Health, and well-being Int J Disaster Risk Sci 2015 6 2 164 76 10.1007/s13753-015-0050-9
Aitsi-Selmi A, Egawa S, Sasaki H, Wannous C, Murray V. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk reduction: renewing the global commitment to people’s resilience, Health, and well-being. Int J Disaster Risk Sci. 2015;6(2):164–76.10.1007/s13753-015-0050-9
13. Center ADR Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030 2015 Geneva, Switzerland United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
Center ADR. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015–2030. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; 2015.
14. United Nations. Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction 2015. https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030.
15. United Nations General Assembly. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction (A/71/644). 2016.
16. Kligerman M Barry M Walmer D Bendavid E International aid and natural disasters: a pre- and post-earthquake longitudinal study of the healthcare infrastructure in Leogane, Haiti Am J Trop Med Hyg 2015 92 2 448 53 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0379 25510716
Kligerman M, Barry M, Walmer D, Bendavid E. International aid and natural disasters: a pre- and post-earthquake longitudinal study of the healthcare infrastructure in Leogane, Haiti. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2015;92(2):448–53.25510716 10.4269/ajtmh.14-0379
17. Fejerskov AM Clausen ML Seddig S Humanitarian ignorance: towards a new paradigm of non-knowledge in digital humanitarianism Disasters 2024 48 2 e12609 10.1111/disa.12609 37587840
Fejerskov AM, Clausen ML, Seddig S. Humanitarian ignorance: towards a new paradigm of non-knowledge in digital humanitarianism. Disasters. 2024;48(2):e12609.37587840 10.1111/disa.12609
18. Jovel RJM. Mohinder. Damage, Loss, and Needs Assessment Guidance Notes: Volume 1. Design and Execution of Damage, Loss, and Needs Assessment: World Bank, Washington, DC; 2010. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/19047.
19. Collaborative EP. Participatory planning guide for post-disaster reconstruction. EPC-Environmental Planning Collaborative, TCG International, LLC.; 2004. pp. 1–22.
20. Jovel JR, Mudahar MS. Conducting damage and loss assessments after disasters. The World Bank; 2010.
21. Chapin E Daniels A Elias R Aspilcueta D Doocy S Impact of the 2007 Ica earthquake on health facilities and health service provision in southern Peru Prehosp Disaster Med 2009 24 4 326 32 10.1017/S1049023X00007056 19806557
Chapin E, Daniels A, Elias R, Aspilcueta D, Doocy S. Impact of the 2007 Ica earthquake on health facilities and health service provision in southern Peru. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(4):326–32.19806557 10.1017/S1049023X00007056
22. Achour N Miyajima M Post-earthquake hospital functionality evaluation: the case of Kumamoto Earthquake 2016 Earthq Spectra 2020 36 4 1670 94 10.1177/8755293020926180
Achour N, Miyajima M. Post-earthquake hospital functionality evaluation: the case of Kumamoto Earthquake 2016. Earthq Spectra. 2020;36(4):1670–94.10.1177/8755293020926180
23. Peters MD, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Chapter 11: scoping reviews (2020 version). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. 2020.
24. Peters MDJ Marnie C Tricco AC Pollock D Munn Z Alexander L Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews JBI Evid Synth 2020 18 10 2119 26 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167 33038124
Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Munn Z, Alexander L, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(10):2119–26.33038124 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167
25. Components and entities of post-disaster Damage and loss Assessment Programme in the health sector: a Scoping Review Protocol [Internet]. Center for Open Science. 2022. 10.17605/OSF.IO/NJ3FK.
26. Miri J Raeisi AR Atighechian G Seyedin H Developing a conceptual model of post-disaster damage and loss assessment program in the Iranian health sector: a qualitative study protocol BMJ Open 2023 13 3 e065521 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065521 36948560
Miri J, Raeisi AR, Atighechian G, Seyedin H. Developing a conceptual model of post-disaster damage and loss assessment program in the Iranian health sector: a qualitative study protocol. BMJ Open. 2023;13(3):e065521.36948560 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-065521
27. Tricco AC Lillie E Zarin W O’Brien KK Colquhoun H Levac D PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation Ann Intern Med 2018 169 7 467 73 10.7326/M18-0850 30178033
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73.30178033 10.7326/M18-0850
28. Clarke V Braun V Thematic analysis J Posit Psychol 2017 12 3 297 8 10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
Clarke V, Braun V. Thematic analysis. J Posit Psychol. 2017;12(3):297–8.10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613
29. Nowell LS Norris JM White DE Moules NJ Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria Int J Qualitative Methods 2017 16 1 1609406917733847 10.1177/1609406917733847
Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic analysis: striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int J Qualitative Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917733847.10.1177/1609406917733847
30. Mosadeghrad AM Rahimi-Tabar P Health system governance in Iran: a comparative study Razi J Med Sci 2019 26 9 10 28
Mosadeghrad AM, Rahimi-Tabar P. Health system governance in Iran: a comparative study. Razi J Med Sci. 2019;26(9):10–28.
31. UNDP. GFDRR, EU. Post-disaster needs assessments guidelines: Volume B - Health. 2014.
32. Organization WH. Monitoring the building blocks of health systems: a handbook of indicators and their measurement strategies. World Health Organization; 2010.
33. Haghdoost A Dehnavieh R Mehrolhssan MH Abolhallaje M Fazaeli AA Ramezanian M Future financing scenarios for Iran’s Healthcare System Arch Iran Med 2022 25 2 85 90 10.34172/aim.2022.14 35429944
Haghdoost A, Dehnavieh R, Mehrolhssan MH, Abolhallaje M, Fazaeli AA, Ramezanian M. Future financing scenarios for Iran’s Healthcare System. Arch Iran Med. 2022;25(2):85–90.35429944 10.34172/aim.2022.14
34. Al-Harbi E, Zaghloul SS, editors. Swot analysis on cisco® high availability virtualization clusters disaster recovery plan. 3rd International Conference on Digital Information Processing and Communications, ICDIPC 2013; 2013: Society of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (SDIWC).
35. Gufue ZH Haftu HK Alemayehu Y Tsegay EW Mengesha MB Dessalegn B Damage to the public health system caused by war-related looting or vandalism in the Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia Front Public Health 2024 12 1271028 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1271028 38645448
Gufue ZH, Haftu HK, Alemayehu Y, Tsegay EW, Mengesha MB, Dessalegn B. Damage to the public health system caused by war-related looting or vandalism in the Tigray region of Northern Ethiopia. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1271028.38645448 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1271028
36. De Groeve T, Poljansek K, Ehrlich D. Recording Disaster Losses. Recommendations for a European Research JRC Scientific and Policy reports Joint Research Centre, European Commission. 2013.
37. Reduction UNISfD. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk reduction 2015. United Nations; 2015.
38. Corbane C De Groeve T Ehrlich D Poljansek K A European Framework for Recording and sharing disaster damage and loss data Isprs J Photogrammetry Remote Sens 2015 XL–3/W3 277 83
Corbane C, De Groeve T, Ehrlich D, Poljansek K. A European Framework for Recording and sharing disaster damage and loss data. Isprs J Photogrammetry Remote Sens. 2015;XL–3/W3:277–83.
39. De Groeve T, Corbane C, Poljanšek K, Ehrlich D. Current status and best practices for disaster loss data recording in the EU Member States. Publications Office of the European Union; 2014.
40. Giri S Risnes K Uleberg O Rogne T Shrestha SK Nygaard OP Impact of 2015 earthquakes on a local hospital in Nepal: a prospective hospital-based study PLoS ONE 2018 13 2 e0192076 10.1371/journal.pone.0192076 29394265
Giri S, Risnes K, Uleberg O, Rogne T, Shrestha SK, Nygaard OP, et al. Impact of 2015 earthquakes on a local hospital in Nepal: a prospective hospital-based study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(2):e0192076.29394265 10.1371/journal.pone.0192076
41. Khankeh H Kolivand PH Beyrami Jam M Rajabi E Kermanshah Health Care Services: a lesson learned from Iran’s recent earthquake Health Emergencies Disasters Q 2018 3 4 221 33 10.32598/hdq.3.4.221
Khankeh H, Kolivand PH, Beyrami Jam M, Rajabi E. Kermanshah Health Care Services: a lesson learned from Iran’s recent earthquake. Health Emergencies Disasters Q. 2018;3(4):221–33.10.32598/hdq.3.4.221
42. World B European U United N Gaza Rapid Damage and needs Assessment, June 2021 2021 Washington, DC World Bank
World B, European U, United N. Gaza Rapid Damage and needs Assessment, June 2021. Washington, DC: World Bank; 2021.
43. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran UCTiI. Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA): Iran 2019 Floods in Lorestan, Khuzestan, and Golestan Provinces. 2019.
44. Boisvert S Disaster recovery: mitigating loss through documentation J Healthc Risk Manag 2011 31 2 15 7 10.1002/jhrm.20083 21990198
Boisvert S. Disaster recovery: mitigating loss through documentation. J Healthc Risk Manag. 2011;31(2):15–7.21990198 10.1002/jhrm.20083
45. Nepal government G, UNDP Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster needs Assessment Vol 2015 B Sector Reports
Nepal government G, UNDP. Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post Disaster needs Assessment Vol. B: Sector Reports; 2015.
46. Institute NDR. Post-disaster Reconstruction and Rehabilitation National Plan. The National Disaster Management Organization; 2021.
47. Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n71 10.1136/bmj.n71 33782057
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.33782057 10.1136/bmj.n71
