Skip to main content Accessibility help

Comparative Review on the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Relief Teams’ Deployment to Sudden-Onset Disasters

  • Andrea Bartolucci (a1), Darren Walter (a1) and Tony Redmond (a1)


When a disaster exceeds the capacity of the affected country to cope with its own resources, the provision of external rescue and health services is required, and the deployment of relief units requested. Recently, the cost of international relief and the belief that such deployment is cost-effective has been questioned by the international community; unfortunately, there is still little informed debate and few detailed data are available. This paper presents the results of a comparative review on the cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of search and rescue (SAR) and Emergency Medical Team (EMT) deployment. The aim of this work is to provide an overview of the topic, highlight the criteria used to assess the effectiveness, and identify gaps in existing literature. The results show that both deployments are highly expensive, and their success is strongly related to the time they need to be operational; SAR deployments are characterized by limited outcomes in terms of lives saved, and EMTs by insufficient data and lack of detailed assessment. This research highlights that the criteria used to assess the effectiveness need to be explored further, considering different purposes, lengths of stay, and different activities performed, especially for any comparison. This study concludes that data reporting should be mandatory for humanitarian response agencies.


Corresponding author

Correspondence: Andrea Bartolucci Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute (HCRI) Ellen Wilkinson Building The University of Manchester M13 9PL, Manchester, UK E-mail:


Hide All
1. de Ville de Goyet, C. Health lessons learned from the recent earthquakes and tsunami in Asia. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007;22(1):1521.10.1017/S1049023X00004283
2. Henderson, AK, Lillibridge, SR, Salinas, C, Graves, RW, Roth, PB, Noji, EK. Disaster medical assistance teams: providing health care to a community struck by hurricane Iniki. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;23(4):726730.
3. Cone, DC. Rescue from the rubble: urban search and rescue. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2000;4(4):352357.
4. Morris, B. Preparedness required for ensuring best coordinated use of international urban search and rescue assistance by earthquake affected countries. 2007. Accessed January 1, 2019.
5. Government of Nepal. Nepal Earthquake 2015: Post-Disaster Needs Assessment. 2015:1134.
6. UNISDR. 2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. Int Strat Disaster Reduct. 2009:130.
7. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. INSARAG Guidelines. 2016;I:26.
8. De Ville De Goyet, C, Marti, RZ, Osorio, C. Natural disaster mitigation and relief. Dis Control Priorities Dev Ctries. 2003;000(Ifrc):11471162.
9. Bea, K. Urban search and rescue task forces: facts and issues. Growth (Lakeland). 2010.
10. Aoki, N, Nishimura, A, Pretto, EA, Sugimoto, K, Beck, JR, Fukui, T. Survival and cost analysis of fatalities of the Kobe earthquake in Japan. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004;8(2):217222.
11. Arksey, H, O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol Theory Pract. 2005;8(1):1932.
12. Mikki, S. Google Scholar compared to Web of Science. A literature review. Nord J Inf Lit High Educ. 2009;1(1):4151.
13. Tober, M. PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, or Google Scholar — which is the best search engine for an effective literature research in laser medicine? Med Laser Appl. 2011;26(3):139144.
14. Abolghasemi, H, Radfar, MH, Khatami, M, Nia, MS, Amid, A, Briggs, SM. International medical response to a natural disaster: lessons learned from the Bam earthquake experience. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2006;21(3):141147.10.1017/S1049023X00003599
15. Noji, EK, Armenian, HK, Oganessian, A. Issues of rescue and medical care following the 1988 Armenian earthquake. Int J Epidemiol. 1993;22(6):10701076.
16. Peleg, K, Kellermann, AL. Medical relief after earthquakes: it’s time for a new paradigm. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;59(3):188190.
17. Macintyre, AG, Barbera, J, Smith, ER. Surviving collapsed structure entrapment after earthquakes: a “time-to-rescue” analysis. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2006;21(1):417; discussion 18–19.
18. Statheropoulos, M, Agapiou, A, Pallis, GC, et al. Factors that affect rescue time in urban search and rescue (USAR) operations. Nat Hazards. 2015;75(1):5769.
19. Alexander, D. The costs of relief in international disasters. 2011:119. Accessed January 1, 2019.
20. Ashdown, P. Humanitarian emergency response review. Humanit Emergencies. 2011;(March):58.
21. DFID. United Kingdom International Search and Rescue (UK ISAR) deployment support programme for emergency response operations overseas (2012 ‐ 2015). 2015. Accessed January 1, 2019.
22. Okita, Y, Katsube, T. Coordination of International Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams in the 2015 Nepal earthquake: “disaster literacy” for international USAR. J JAEEJournal Japan Assoc Earthq Eng. 2016;16(7):7, 24–27, 36.
23. Schreeb, J Von, Riddez, L, Samnegård, H, Rosling, H. Foreign field hospitals in the recent sudden-onset disasters in Iran, Haiti, Indonesia, and Pakistan. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2008;23(2):144151.10.1017/S1049023X00005768
24. Gerdin, M, Wladis, A, von Schreeb, J. Foreign field hospitals after the 2010 Haiti earthquake: how good were we? Emerg Med J. 2013;30(1):e8.
25. Arziman, I. Field organization and disaster medical assistance teams. Turkish J Emerg Med. 2015;15(Supp 1):1119.
26. Brolin, K, Hawajri, O, von Schreeb, J. Foreign medical teams in the Philippines after typhoon Haiyan 2013 ‐ who were they, when did they arrive and what did they do? PLOS Curr Disasters. 2015;7(DISASTERS):17.
27. Glassey, S. Analysis of urban search and rescue markings applied following the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. J Search Rescue. 2013;1(1):2949.
28. Bartels, SA, Vanrooyen, MJ. Review medical complications associated with earthquakes. Lancet. 2012;379(9817):748757.
29. Goyet, CDV De. Stop propagating disaster myths. Lancet. 2000;356.
30. DFID. Humanitarian Emergency Response Review: UK Government Response; 2011.
31. Kondo, H, Koido, Y, Morino, K, et al. Establishing disaster medical assistance teams in Japan. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(6):556564.
32. Levy, G, Blumberg, N, Kreiss, Y, Ash, N, Merin, O. Application of information technology within a field hospital deployment following the January 2010 Haiti earthquake disaster. J Am Med Informatics Assoc. 2010;17(6):626630.
33. Salman, FS, Gül, S. Deployment of field hospitals in mass casualty incidents. Comput Ind Eng. 2014;74(1):3751.
34. Schnitzer, JJ, Briggs, SM. Earthquake relief — the US medical response in Bam, Iran. N Engl J Med. 2004;350(12):11741176.
35. WHO. Emergency Medical Teams. Emerg Med Teams WHO EMT Initiat. 2017.
36. Auf der Heide, E. The importance of evidence-based disaster planning. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47(1):3449.
37. Bartolucci, A, Magni, M. Survivors’ solidarity and attachment in the immediate aftermath of the typhoon Haiyan (Philippines). PLOS Curr Disasters. 2017.
38. Quarantelli, EL. Conventional beliefs and counterintuitive realities. Soc Res (New York). 2008;75(3):873905.
39. Barbera, JA, Cadoux, CG. Search, rescue, and evacuation. Crit Care Clin. 1991;7(2):321337.
40. de Ville de Goyet, C. Stop propagating disaster myths. Aust J Emerg Manag. 1999;14(4):2628.
41. Kreiss, Y, Merin, O, Peleg, K, et al. Early disaster response in Haiti: the Israeli field hospital experience. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153(1):391393.
42. Redmond, AD, Mardel, S, Taithe, B, et al. A qualitative and quantitative study of the surgical and rehabilitation response to the earthquake in Haiti, January 2010. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2011;26(6):449456.


Comparative Review on the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Relief Teams’ Deployment to Sudden-Onset Disasters

  • Andrea Bartolucci (a1), Darren Walter (a1) and Tony Redmond (a1)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed