4.2 Article

Disasters in Germany and France: An Analysis of the Emergency Events Database From a Pediatric Perspective

Journal

DISASTER MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS
Volume 13, Issue 5-6, Pages 958-965

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/dmp.2019.24

Keywords

disasters; disaster medicine; education; public health professional; emergency preparedness; epidemiologic methods

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct comprehensive analyses of disaster patterns for Germany and France from a pediatric perspective. Methods: An analysis of the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT), epidemiological database with standard methods of descriptive and comparative statistics respecting the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) criteria, was performed. Results: Between 2006 and 2016, there were 41 and 42 disasters in Germany and France claiming 259 and 4973 lives, respectively. Ages of afflicted individuals were not specified in EM-DAT. In Germany, most events were storms (37%), extreme temperatures (17%), floods (17%), and transport accidents (17%). In France, most events were storms (45%), extreme temperatures (17%), floods (19%), and transport accidents (14%). In Germany, most lives (96) were lost in transport accidents. In France, most casualties were due to the heat waves of 2006 and 2015 (1388 and 3275). Reported event types in Germany and France were similar, but heat waves struck France more significantly than Germany. Conclusions: Pediatric data are not explicitly captured in EM-DAT, but reported disaster patterns suggest that exposures to heat and cold, storms, trauma, chemicals, water, and infectious agents are possible mechanisms of injury. Age-stratified disaster data are needed to enable a timely, transparent, coordinated, and sustained data-driven approach to pediatric disaster resilience.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available