In a Policy Forum, Cecilia Sorensen and colleagues discuss the implications of climate change for women's health.

The first international conference for the post-2015 United Nations landmark agreements (Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, Sustainable Development Goals, and Paris Agreement on Climate Change) was held in January 2016 to discuss the role of science and technology in implementing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. The UNISDR Science and Technology Conference on the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 aimed to discuss and endorse plans that maximize science’s contribution to reducing disaster risks and losses in the coming 15 years and bring together the diversity of stakeholders producing and using disaster risk reduction (DRR) science and technology. This article describes the evolution of the role of science and technology in the policy process building up to the Sendai Framework adoption that resulted in an unprecedented emphasis on science in the text agreed on by 187 United Nations member states in March 2015 and endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly in June 2015. Contributions assembled by the Conference Organizing Committee and teams including the conference concept notes and the conference discussions that involved a broad range of scientists and decision makers are summarized in this article. The conference emphasized how partnerships and networks can advance multidisciplinary research and bring together science, policy, and practice; how disaster risk is understood, and how risks are assessed and early warning systems are designed; what data, standards, and innovative practices would be needed to measure and report on risk reduction; what research and capacity gaps exist and how difficulties in creating and using science for effective DRR can be overcome. The Science and Technology Conference achieved two main outcomes: (1) initiating the UNISDR Science and Technology Partnership for the implementation of the Sendai Framework; and (2) generating discussion and agreement regarding the content and endorsement process of the UNISDR Science and Technology Road Map to 2030.

Introduction Flooding accounts for about 40 per cent of all natural disasters that occur worldwide. In 2002–2003 many counties in England experienced severe floods. Floods are particularly important in public health terms as they may have multiple environmental consequences. Methods Details of floods reported to Chemical Hazards and Poisons Division, London [CHaPD(L)] were analysed and a literature review was undertaken to identify published reports of flood-related chemical incidents that have had an impact on public health. Results Epidemiological evidence shows that chemical material may contaminate homes and that in some cases flooding may lead to mobilization of dangerous chemicals from storage or remobilization of chemicals already in the environment, e.g. pesticides. Hazards may be greater when industrial or agricultural land adjoining residential land is affected. Less evidence exists to support the hypothesis that flooding that causes chemical contamination has a clear causal effect on the pattern of morbidity and mortality following these flooding events. Conclusion In the light of this evidence, a checklist/pro forma for public health response to and investigation of flooding events that may result in chemical contamination was needed. This is available from CHaPD(L).

Objective:: A scoping exercise to establish how common hospital evacuations are, identify hospital evacuation policies and review case studies to identify trig-gers, processes and challenges involved in the evacuation of hospitals globally.Design:: A systematic search of PubMed and disaster agency online resources, search of grey literature and media reports.Results:: This study showed that hospitals are vulnerable to both natural and man made disasters and that hospital evacuations do occur globally. It highlighted the paucity of published data and policy on hospital evacuation and emphasised the vital need to collect data on triggers, reasons for evacuation, sheltering facilities and the process of evacuation.Conclusions:: This study recommends the collection of case studies and the development of a database to assist with the research and development of well tailored hospital evacuation plans. These recommendations reflect and support the 2008-2009 World Disaster Reduction Campaign on Hospitals Safe from Disasters and the timely 2009 Global Platform priority that, ‘Critical services and infrastructure such as health facilities and schools must be safe from disasters.

The novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic brought about several features that increased the sense of fear and confusion, such as quarantine and financial losses among other stressors, which may have led to adverse psychosocial outcomes. The influence of such stressors took place within a broader sociocultural context that needs to be considered. The objective was to examine how the psychological response to the pandemic varied across countries and identify which risk/protective factors contributed to this response. An online survey was conducted from 29 May 2020–12 June 2020, among a multinational sample of 8806 adults from eight countries/regions (Canada, United States, England, Switzerland, Belgium, Hong Kong, Philippines, New Zealand). Probable generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depression episode (MDE) were assessed. The independent role of a wide range of potential factors was examined using multilevel logistic regression. Probable GAD and MDE were indicated by 21.0% and 25.5% of the respondents, respectively, with an important variation according to countries/regions (GAD: 12.2–31.0%; MDE: 16.7–32.9%). When considered together, 30.2% of the participants indicated probable GAD or MDE. Several factors were positively associated with a probable GAD or MDE, including (in descending order of importance) weak sense of coherence (SOC), lower age, false beliefs, isolation, threat perceived for oneself/family, mistrust in authorities, stigma, threat perceived for country/world, financial losses, being a female, and having a high level of information about COVID-19. Having a weak SOC yielded the highest adjusted odds ratio for probable GAD or MDE (3.21; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.73–3.77). This pandemic is having an impact on psychological health. In some places and under certain circumstances, however, people seem to be better protected psychologically. This is a unique opportunity to evaluate the psychosocial impacts across various sociocultural backgrounds, providing important lessons that could inform all phases of disaster risk management.

Disasters exact a heavy toll globally. However, the degree to which we can accurately quantify their impact, in particular mortality, remains challenging. It is critical to ensure that disaster data reliably reflects the scale, type, and distribution of disaster impacts given the role of data in: (1) risk assessments; (2) developing disaster risk management programs; (3) determining the resources for response to emergencies; (4) the types of action undertaken in planning for prevention and preparedness; and (5) identifying research gaps. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030s seven global disaster-impact reduction targets represent the first international attempt to systematically measure the effectiveness of disaster-impact reduction as a means of better informing policy with evidence. Target A of the Sendai Framework aims to “substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower the average per 100,000 global mortality rate in the decade 2020–2030 compared to the period 2005–2015.” This article provides an overview of the complexities associated with defining, reporting, and interpreting disaster mortality data used for gauging success in meeting Target A, acknowledging different challenges for different types of hazard events and subsequent disasters. It concludes with suggestions of how to address these challenges to inform the public health utility of monitoring through the Sendai Framework.