↓ Skip to main content

Resilience to climate-induced disasters and its overall impact on well-being in Southern Africa: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Resilience to climate-induced disasters and its overall impact on well-being in Southern Africa: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol
Published in
Systematic Reviews, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0796-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joseph K. Kamara, Nidhi Wali, Kingsley Agho, Andre M. N. Renzaho

Abstract

Southern Africa has long been vulnerable to climate-induced disasters, especially droughts and floods. The severity and frequency of disasters increased in the early 1980s, continuously eroding livelihoods, which in turn invoked humanitarian intervention. A systematic review of the relationship between resilience to drought and well-being will be undertaken. Studies will be included if they were conducted between January 1980 and December 2017; used quantitative and/or qualitative methods; were peer reviewed or comprise grey literature; covered Southern Africa; and measured resilience and its relationship to well-being. Data extraction will be informed by the Cochrane Public Health Group and the Joanna Briggs Institute manuals. The quality of evidence of the studies included will be assessed for risk bias, psychometric properties of tools used, and their suitability. The findings will be summarised into themes and narrated. This protocol is guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The protocol gives insight of the scope and parameters for the systematic review to be carried out. The systematic review will establish how resilience to climate-induced disasters affects well-being. It will also provide recommendations to improve humanitarian coordination in Southern Africa. The protocol was registered by the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews, reference CRD42017064396 .

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Lecturer 5 7%
Researcher 5 7%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 30 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 12%
Environmental Science 5 7%
Engineering 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 33 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 January 2022.
All research outputs
#3,762,814
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#727
of 2,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,041
of 333,383 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#28
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,005 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,383 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.