BMJ global health · 2026
Climate, geography and socioeconomic vulnerability and emergency care accessibility in Nepal, 2022: a high-resolution geospatial analysis of inequalities.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mesic Aldina, Davis Andrea, Ochoa Carlos, Budhathoki Shyam Sundar, Shrestha Raslina, Stewart Barclay T, Millett Christopher, Hone Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Strengthening emergency care systems could reduce death and disability in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), yet many struggle to provide timely, high-quality care. LMICs also face growing risks from climate-related shocks and mass casualty events. This study identifies unmet emergency care needs in Nepal-one of the world's most climate-vulnerable countries-using high-resolution geospatial data to estimate socioeconomic and climate-related inequalities.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional geospatial analysis using data from the 2022 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), the 2021 DHS Service Provision Assessment and publicly available climate vulnerability data. Government hospitals were classified into three emergency care levels using World Health Organzation criteria: A (basic 24-hour services), B (A plus resuscitative capabilities) and C (B plus ≥50 beds and a surgeon). Household location and injury data were obtained from the DHS. Accessibility was defined as the proportion of the population within 1-hour and 2-hour travel times, estimated using AccessMod 5.8, incorporating road networks, rivers, land cover and elevation.
FINDINGS: Most public hospitals (77.7%) met Level A criteria but only 49.3% met Level B and 10.8% met Level C. Nationally, 78.7% of households had 1-hour access to Level A care, 71.8% to Level B and 44.6% to Level C. Adjusted logistic regression showed rural, poorer and climate-vulnerable households had significantly lower 1-hour access compared with urban households, rural households had lower odds of access: Level A OR: 0.33 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.37), Level B OR: 0.33 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.36), Level C OR: 0.56 (95%CI 0.51 to 0.61). Households in high climate vulnerability areas had reduced access across all levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial gaps and inequities in timely access to high-quality emergency care exist in Nepal. Rural, poorer and climate-vulnerable populations experience markedly lower access. Targeted, decentralised strengthening of emergency care capacity is essential both in Nepal and in other LMICs facing similar constraints.
METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional geospatial analysis using data from the 2022 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), the 2021 DHS Service Provision Assessment and publicly available climate vulnerability data. Government hospitals were classified into three emergency care levels using World Health Organzation criteria: A (basic 24-hour services), B (A plus resuscitative capabilities) and C (B plus ≥50 beds and a surgeon). Household location and injury data were obtained from the DHS. Accessibility was defined as the proportion of the population within 1-hour and 2-hour travel times, estimated using AccessMod 5.8, incorporating road networks, rivers, land cover and elevation.
FINDINGS: Most public hospitals (77.7%) met Level A criteria but only 49.3% met Level B and 10.8% met Level C. Nationally, 78.7% of households had 1-hour access to Level A care, 71.8% to Level B and 44.6% to Level C. Adjusted logistic regression showed rural, poorer and climate-vulnerable households had significantly lower 1-hour access compared with urban households, rural households had lower odds of access: Level A OR: 0.33 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.37), Level B OR: 0.33 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.36), Level C OR: 0.56 (95%CI 0.51 to 0.61). Households in high climate vulnerability areas had reduced access across all levels.
CONCLUSIONS: Substantial gaps and inequities in timely access to high-quality emergency care exist in Nepal. Rural, poorer and climate-vulnerable populations experience markedly lower access. Targeted, decentralised strengthening of emergency care capacity is essential both in Nepal and in other LMICs facing similar constraints.