The World Health Organization (WHO) has developed and supported numerous initiatives to build capacity and awareness about health emergency and disaster risk management (Health EDRM). These include establishing the Health EDRM Research Network (Health EDRM RN) in 2018 and the publication of the Health EDRM Framework in 2019. These initiatives recognize that research is vital to generating the evidence to inform decision making and research that is integral to disaster preparedness, response and recovery will be vital to delivering the aspirations associated with caring, coping and overcoming in an increasingly challenging world.

To strengthen the capacity for conduct and use of research, resources were developed by the WHO Guidance on Research Methods for Health EDRM.

This first WHO textbook on Health EDRM research methods was published in 2021 and updated in 2022 with a chapter on Health EDRM research in the context of COVID-19. The 44 chapters offer practical advice about how to plan, conduct and report on a variety of quantitative and qualitative studies that can inform questions about policies and programs for health-related emergencies and disasters across different settings and level of resources. Case studies of direct relevance to Health EDRM provide real-life examples of research methods and how they have modified policies.

More than 160 authors in 30 countries contributed to the guidance, which is relevant to researchers, would-be researchers, policy makers and practitioners. It should help improve the quality of Health EDRM research; the quality of policy, practice and guidance supported by the evidence generated; and research capacity, collaboration and engagement among researchers, the research community, policy-makers, practitioners and other stakeholders.

The Guidance is being supplemented by additional resources, including audio podcasts, slideshows, video presentations and webinars, and the content as a whole will be discussed in this presentation.

The concept of disaster related internal displacement is typically seen as something that occurs in low-income countries and is rarely considered in the setting of high-income countries. This leads to a paucity of data to support contextually appropriate best practices to address displacement. This research, funded by the Australian government, explores the lived experiences of those faced with forced displacement from disasters in high-income countries and aims to improve outcomes for this vulnerable cohort.

The first phase of the research, guided by a broad-based Steering Group, included a rapid literature review and thematic analysis of peer-reviewed literature of disaster related, internal displacement in high-income countries, including Australia.

The peer reviewed literature review identified only 12 papers that met the inclusion criteria. The literature from Australia and other developed countries indicated that internal displacement is a prominent feature of disaster impacts and that needs are complex, dynamic and diverse. Common themes of need were revealed: the need for the development of an evolving displacement policy framework to support human rights; the co-creation, coordination and provision of timely and flexible support services, and on-going data collection and sharing. No displacement, specific frameworks, measurable thresholds, or central data registries exist at federal or state government levels in Australia to support these needs.

Inclusive policies, practices, and resources are required in Australia to support assets of displaced people and address their unmet needs in disasters, which also remain largely unmet in other high-income countries. Australia can learn from all countries faced with the challenges of managing displacement and also share its own experiences. Furthermore, it is recommended that WADEM consider extending its current Position Statement relating to Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons to include high-income countries based on the findings of our study and other sources.

As populations worldwide are experiencing more frequent and intense weather and climate extremes, many professionals of the WADEM community are at the frontline of managing compounding and cascading impacts on physical and mental health. Vulnerable, isolated, and marginalized people are the most affected by climate and weather threats. The elderly and children faced 3.7 billion more life-threatening heatwave days in 2021 than annually in 1986-2005 increasing the need for emergency care on a large scale.

The World Health Organization (WHO) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO), together with partners from health agencies, climate services, academia and other sectors are collaborating to accelerate the use of climate, weather and environmental science and services for better health protection. A selection of key resources and tools will be highlighted that can be used by the WADEM community to better understand, anticipate, and manage health risks from extreme weather and climate.

Participants will learn about the new WHO-WMO ClimaHealth Portal, a global knowledge and action hub with huge potential for facilitating learning and action to better protect health from climate risks. Tools and resources include the Global Heat Health Information Network (GHHIN) Checklist and Technical Brief for improved heatwave preparedness and response in the context of COVID-19, and a new WHO Guidance Document on Measuring the Climate Resilience of Health Systems providing a framework and indicators for assessing and protecting health systems from climate threats.

As extreme weather intensifies, integrated climate-informed services for the health sector including multi-hazard early warning systems and action plans, as well as strengthened partnerships between the health community and hydrometeorological services are indispensable to further restrict adverse health impacts. Accelerating the uptake and upscale of existing tools and resources is urgently needed to meet the increasing health and societal challenges caused by climate change and weather extremes.

A prepared and well-trained workforce is essential to reducing the loss of lives from health emergencies. However, it is uncertain what should be included in the common set of core competencies for the health emergency and disaster risk management (Health EDRM) workforce. The objective of the study is to provide evidence mapping for the competencies in existing professional development programs and courses in Health EDRM.

A survey conducted using an online platform (Survey Monkey) was conducted from October to November 2021. Experts in the Health EDRM Research Network including experts identified for the Delphi studies were invited to join the study. Participants should be ≥ 18 years of age, and had relevant experience in Health EDRM and in disaster education and training programs. A self designed questionnaire containing 28 questions in four domains including competencies; curriculum; evidence gaps; work and personal details were used.

There were 65 respondents from 20 countries participating in the survey. Most of the respondents worked in academic institutions (60%), followed by government employees (19%), and non-governmental organizations (7%). These organizations have roles throughout the disaster cycle with 95% in the preparedness phase. For management skills, EDRM managers should be competent in planning, organizing, applying management processes, establishing effective communication systems and providing effective leadership. For technical competencies, emergency communications, hazard specific knowledge, communicable diseases were essential for frontline workers. In terms of designing the competency matrix, WHO resources were frequently used for the competencies and the curriculum design.

Health EDRM managers are expected to master a large number of managerial and technical skills, including the increasingly recognized leadership and decision-making skills for effective planning and implementation. These competencies need to be established for the development of a Health EDRM workforce.

WHO Thematic Platform for Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management Research Network (Health EDRM RN) is a global expert network, launched in 2018, aiming to strengthen the scientific evidence for managing health risks associated with all types of emergencies and disasters, and to foster global collaboration among academia, government officials and other stakeholders. The Health EDRM RN’s activities are in line with WHO Health EDRM Framework, which support Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.

Health EDRM RN’s strategic direction is discussed and advised by its Core Group that consists of focal points of WHO HQ responsible unit, all six Regional Offices, WHO Center for Health Development (Secretariat), RN co-chairs, and key external stakeholders. Based on the strategic direction, the Secretariat facilitates global, regional, and local collaborative activities with the RN participants and partners. As of 2022, over 250 global experts participate in the network.

Following the results of the Core Group Meeting in 2019, 2020 and 2021, multiple activities and results were generated including the identification of five Health EDRM key research areas. WHO Guidance on Research Methods for Health EDRM developed in collaboration with over 150 global experts, initiation of the project to establish WHO Health EDRM Knowledge Hub for developing WHO Health EDRM Research Agenda and aligning with UNDRR research agenda on thematic areas including developing a special supplement on mid-term review of Sendai Framework implementation in health. The 2022 Core Group Meeting, held on October 27, 2022, agreed to promote knowledge dissemination and implementation research for better outputs for regions and countries.

WHO Health EDRM RN will continue its unique function as the platform of global experts and stakeholders to produce, disseminate, and apply knowledge. Participation and engagement by more and broader experts are expected.

According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), more than 60% of the internal displacements recorded worldwide in 2021 were due to disasters. A conservative estimate by IDMC reports 65,000 new displacements between July 2019 and February 2020 as a result of the Black Summer bushfires and more than 42,000 displacements due to flooding in February and March 2022 in Australia. These are estimates as there are no consistent or consolidated data on those who are displaced in Australia affecting the measurement of the magnitude of displacement, and the knowledge of experience, impact and needs of displaced people to inform policy and practice. Thus, the aim of this study, as part of a larger project, is to review key international and Australian policies about data on internal displacement due to disasters.

We conducted a desk review of key international policies, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and from the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA), as well as Australian policies such as the Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework, Emergency Management Arrangements Handbook and even state level emergency legislation/acts and plans to understand the data collection and supports and services provided to those who become displaced due to disasters.

This review found that both international and Australian policies lacked specific focus on internal displacement, despite it being a key issue. While international policies and procedures in low income countries exist, in particular where the international humanitarian system is operational, this review found that Australia lacked specific focus on internal displacement.

Data on displacement due to disasters, including the number of people displaced, and the patterns of their displacement is critical to inform better policies on prevention, emergency planning, evacuation response and finally to improve the support that people who are experiencing displacement receive.

Health workforce development is essential for achieving the goals of an effective health system, as well as establishing national Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management (Health EDRM).

The objective of this Delphi consensus study was to identify strategic recommendations for strengthening the workforce for Health EDRM in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and high-income countries (HIC).

A total of 31 international experts were asked to rate the level of importance (one being strongly unimportant to seven being strongly important) for 46 statements that contain recommendations for strengthening the workforce for Health EDRM. The experts were divided into a LMIC group and an HIC group. There were three rounds of rating, and statements that did not reach consensus (SD ≥ 1.0) proceeded to the next round for further ranking.

In total, 44 statements from the LMIC group and 34 statements from the HIC group attained consensus and achieved high mean scores for importance (higher than five out of seven). The components of the World Health Organization (WHO) Health EDRM Framework with the highest number of recommendations were “Human Resources” (n = 15), “Planning and Coordination” (n = 7), and “Community Capacities for Health EDRM” (n = 6) in the LMIC group. “Policies, Strategies, and Legislation” (n = 7) and “Human Resources” (n = 7) were the components with the most recommendations for the HIC group.

The expert panel provided a comprehensive list of important and actionable strategic recommendations on workforce development for Health EDRM.

Prospective studies are needed to assess the influence of pre-pandemic risk factors on mental health outcomes following the COVID-19 pandemic. From direct interviews prior to (T1), and then in the same individuals after the pandemic onset (T2), we assessed the influence of personal psychiatric history on changes in symptoms and wellbeing.

Two hundred and four (19–69 years/117 female) individuals from a multigenerational family study were followed clinically up to T1. Psychiatric symptom changes (T1-to-T2), their association with lifetime psychiatric history (no, only-past, and recent psychiatric history), and pandemic-specific worries were investigated.

At T2 relative to T1, participants with recent psychopathology (in the last 2 years) had significantly fewer depressive (mean, M = 41.7 v. 47.6) and traumatic symptoms (M = 6.6 v. 8.1, p < 0.001), while those with no and only-past psychiatric history had decreased wellbeing (M = 22.6 v. 25.0, p < 0.01). Three pandemic-related worry factors were identified: Illness/death, Financial, and Social isolation. Individuals with recent psychiatric history had greater Illness/death and Financial worries than the no/only-past groups, but these worries were unrelated to depression at T2. Among individuals with no/only-past history, Illness/death worries predicted increased T2 depression [B = 0.6(0.3), p < 0.05].

As recent psychiatric history was not associated with increased depression or anxiety during the pandemic, new groups of previously unaffected persons might contribute to the increased pandemic-related depression and anxiety rates reported. These individuals likely represent incident cases that are first detected in primary care and other non-specialty clinical settings. Such settings may be useful for monitoring future illness among newly at-risk individuals.

Social cognition is frequently impaired following an acquired brain injury (ABI) but often overlooked in clinical assessments. There are few validated and appropriate measures of social cognitive abilities for ABI patients. The current study examined the validity of the Edinburgh Social Cognition Test (ESCoT, Baksh et al., 2018) in measuring social cognition following an ABI.

Forty-one patients with ABI were recruited from a rehabilitation service and completed measures of general ability, executive functions and social cognition (Faux Pas; FP, Reading the Mind in the Eyes; RME, Social Norms Questionnaire; SNQ and the ESCoT). Forty-one controls matched on age, sex and years of education also performed the RME, SNQ and ESCoT.

A diagnosis of ABI was significantly associated with poorer performance on all ESCoT measures and RME while adjusting for age, sex and years of education. In ABI patients, the ESCoT showed good internal consistency with its subcomponents and performance correlated with the other measures of social cognition demonstrating convergent validity. Better Trail Making Test performance predicted better ESCoT total, RME and SNQ scores. Higher TOPF IQ was associated with higher RME scores, while higher WAIS-IV working memory predicted better FP performance.

The ESCoT is a brief, valid and internally consistent assessment tool able to detect social cognition deficits in neurological patients. Given the prevalence of social cognition deficits in ABI and the marked impact these can have on an individual’s recovery, this assessment can be a helpful addition to a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment.