arbiter
JournalsAccount

Vulnerabilities of people with different types of disabilities in disasters: a rapid evidence review and qualitative research

Kien Nguyen‐Trung et al.

Disasters2025https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12686review
ABDC A
Weight
0.56

Abstract

Despite the growth of disaster scholarship, the topic of how and why climate-related disasters and extreme weather events vary among people with different types of disabilities remains unexplored. To help fill the gap, this study draws on a larger research project that was co-designed by Water Sensitive Cities Australia at Monash University and the Hanoi Association of People with Disabilities, Vietnam. It utilised the dataset of a rapid evidence review of 33 studies, key informant interviews with 26 local stakeholders, and 52 interviews with people with various disabilities in Hanoi and Nghe An province, Vietnam. Using thematic analysis, we identified eight themes pertaining to socially-constructed difficulties facing people with disabilities: barriers to accessing disaster risk information and warnings; difficulties in understanding emergencies; challenges in communicating needs; evacuation and mobility hurdles; decreased sense of belonging and isolation; increased risk of getting sick; increased risk of developing mental health and behavioural disorders; and disrupted livelihood and loss of income.

10 citations

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12686

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{kien2025,
  title        = {{Vulnerabilities of people with different types of disabilities in disasters: a rapid evidence review and qualitative research}},
  author       = {Kien Nguyen‐Trung et al.},
  journal      = {Disasters},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12686},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Vulnerabilities of people with different types of disabilities in disasters: a rapid evidence review and qualitative research

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.56

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.55 × 0.4 = 0.22
M · momentum0.75 × 0.15 = 0.11
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.