The timing and the geography of this launch matter. The editors describe their belief as rooted in cumulative experience gained in a continent and a region they characterize as plagued by both natural and man-made disasters. North Africa, the Middle East, and the wider African continent have contended in recent decades with earthquakes, floods, conflicts, displacement crises, and public health emergencies that place enormous strain on health systems. In such settings, the editors argue, sharing field experience must go hand in hand with rigorous methodology, because anecdote without evidence rarely changes outcomes, and evidence locked behind paywalls rarely reaches the clinicians and officials working in low-resource or crisis-affected environments.

The problem the new journal identifies is a familiar one in global health research: a persistent disconnect between what is published and what is practiced. The founding editorial notes that on a global level, from sudden natural catastrophes to complex humanitarian emergencies, timely and reliable information has repeatedly proven critical, yet researchers, practitioners, and policymakers are often caught by surprise and struggle to access up-to-date findings precisely where the stakes are highest. Disaster-prone and crisis-affected regions frequently lack institutional subscriptions to major journals, meaning that the communities with the most direct experience of mass casualties, infrastructure collapse, and emergency response are often the least able to read the literature about them. The Journal of Emergency and Disaster Medicine is explicitly designed to fill that gap.

Open access sits at the center of that design. The editors state plainly that in many settings where emergencies strike, budgets are tight and institutional subscriptions may be out of reach, so all articles in the journal will be freely accessible to readers worldwide. They frame this as a matter of principle rather than mere convenience, holding that scientific progress and clinical excellence should serve humanity without restriction. The journal is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original authors and source are credited and changes are indicated. For frontline workers in humanitarian operations, that licensing model means research can be downloaded, printed, translated, and circulated in the field without negotiating copyright barriers in the middle of a crisis.

The journal’s scope is broad by design, reflecting the reality that disaster medicine is not a narrow specialty but a systems-level discipline. The editors invite contributions spanning all dimensions of acute and disaster-related care, including prehospital and emergency department medicine, trauma systems, disaster risk reduction, mass casualty response, humanitarian health services, public health emergencies, and the use of technology and innovation in crisis contexts. That breadth mirrors the way disasters actually unfold: a single earthquake engages ambulance dispatch protocols, emergency department triage, surgical capacity, water and sanitation systems, disease surveillance, and long-term rehabilitation of survivors, all at once. A journal that addresses any one of those domains in isolation risks missing the interdependencies that determine how many people survive.

Notably, the editors are not limiting the journal to conventional research formats. Alongside original research, reviews, and policy analyses, they explicitly encourage field reports and case studies that reflect real-world challenges and innovations. This is a methodologically significant choice. Much of the practical knowledge in disaster response exists as institutional memory in the heads of emergency physicians, logisticians, and humanitarian coordinators, and it often evaporates when operations end. Formalizing a venue for such accounts, subject to the same editorial scrutiny as traditional papers, could help convert hard-won field experience into a reusable, citable body of knowledge. The editors emphasize that their focus is on work that not only advances theoretical knowledge but also produces actionable strategies for preparedness, response, and recovery.

Quality control will rest with an Editorial Board that the editors describe as a body of experts drawn from different corners of the world, a composition intended to position the publication as an efficient tool in the prevention and management of emergencies and disasters. Submitted manuscripts will be evaluated by independent reviewers for originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and relevance, the standard pillars of peer review. The journal’s publication workflow is designed to minimize the delay between acceptance and public availability: once a manuscript is accepted, it will be published online immediately after professional copyediting and typesetting. In a field where outbreak dynamics, aftershocks, and mass casualty events move faster than traditional publication cycles, that speed of dissemination is presented as a core feature rather than an afterthought.

The institutional provenance of the journal adds a distinctive dimension. Kasr Al-Ainy Faculty of Medicine, founded in the nineteenth century, is one of the oldest and largest medical schools in Africa and the Middle East, and Cairo University’s teaching hospital complex functions as a major referral center for Egypt. Its emergency departments absorb an enormous and varied caseload, from road traffic trauma to the aftermath of regional emergencies, giving the institution direct operational familiarity with the challenges the journal addresses. A publication anchored in a high-volume, resource-constrained health system, rather than in a wealthy institution insulated from such pressures, has the potential to set different priorities: questions about triage under scarcity, surge capacity, and supply chain resilience are not hypothetical there.

The launch also arrives amid growing international attention to health emergency preparedness. The COVID-19 pandemic, alongside repeated climate-linked disasters and ongoing conflicts, has exposed weaknesses in how evidence flows to decision-makers during crises, and global frameworks for disaster risk reduction have called for stronger science-to-policy linkages. A journal dedicated to converting evidence into actionable strategies speaks directly to that agenda, and its open-access model lowers the barrier for contributions from researchers in low- and middle-income countries, who are frequently underrepresented in high-impact emergency medicine literature.

The founding editorial closes with an invitation rather than a declaration of arrival. Kassem and Mourad write that they envision the Journal of Emergency and Disaster Medicine becoming a go-to reference for clinicians, researchers, humanitarian professionals, and policymakers committed to saving lives under difficult conditions, and they look forward to submissions, critiques, and shared experience as the venture begins. The editorial, published as Volume 1, article number 1 of the journal, is itself open access, and the first issue will reveal whether the publication can attract the rigorous field research and policy work its founders describe. What is already clear is the editorial wager behind it: that in emergencies and disasters, the distance between evidence and action is measured in lives, and that shortening that distance begins with making the evidence universally available.

Subject of Research: The launch of an open-access journal on emergency and disaster medicine

Article Title: From evidence to action: The launch of the Journal of Emergency and Disaster Medicine by Kasr Al-Ainy Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University

Article References: From evidence to action: The launch of the Journal of Emergency and Disaster Medicine by Kasr Al-Ainy Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44467-025-00005-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44467-025-00005-6

Keywords: emergency medicine, disaster medicine, open access, Cairo University, Kasr Al-Ainy, mass casualty response, humanitarian health, public health emergencies, trauma systems, disaster risk reduction, editorial, Springer Nature

The mixed-methods study was conducted at NPHA between February and August 2025, three years after the agency was established under Sierra Leone’s National Public Health Agency Act. Researchers invited all 214 employees to complete a structured readiness survey, and 180 responded, an 84.1 percent response rate. The survey assessed 11 domains on a five-point scale, including surveillance, laboratory systems, information management, risk communication, emergency operations, logistics, emergency finance, coordination and two distinct workforce areas: internal human-resource management and outbreak surge capacity. The researchers also conducted 28 interviews with key informants and four focus-group discussions involving 32 participants. Staff were selected across senior leadership, technical and programme roles, operations and finance, and district-facing positions. Finally, the team reviewed institutional and operational records covering a 12-month period. This convergent design allowed perceived readiness to be compared with administrative evidence and with descriptions of how decisions, personnel, money and supplies moved through the emergency system.

Overall perceived readiness averaged 2.8 out of 5, with a standard deviation of 0.7; only 30.4 percent of respondents rated overall readiness at four or five. Internal human-resource management received the lowest score, averaging 2.1, and just 12.8 percent of staff gave it a high rating. By contrast, coordination with partners and the Ministry of Health averaged 3.6, surveillance and early warning 3.4, and risk communication 3.1. Workforce and surge capacity averaged 3.0, placing it above internal human-resource management. The distinction between these domains was central to the analysis. Surge capacity refers to the people and arrangements available to expand response during an outbreak, while internal human-resource management includes recruitment, induction, performance appraisal, career development, retention, payroll integration and routine personnel information systems. An agency may therefore possess trained responders and still lack the organisational machinery needed to recruit replacements, document responsibilities, support professional development or retain experienced staff after a crisis has passed.

Administrative records reinforced the survey results. NPHA had 214 employees in post against an approved establishment of 286 positions, an overall vacancy rate of 25.2 percent. The gaps were particularly pronounced in functions exposed to operational delays: finance and procurement positions were 60.0 percent vacant, district-facing posts 51.4 percent vacant, and human-resource and administration posts 44.4 percent vacant. Technical and programme positions were comparatively better filled, at 82.2 percent. Among 41 people appointed during the preceding year, only 13 had a documented induction record. The median interval from vacancy approval to appointment was 118 days, while only 13.1 percent of all staff had a completed annual appraisal on file. Updated job descriptions were present in 42.5 percent of personnel files, and documented continuing professional development during the previous year was available for 31.8 percent of staff. These figures suggest that individual expertise has developed faster than the systems needed to maintain and distribute it.

The agency’s response workforce is a significant asset, shaped by investments made after the 2014–2016 Ebola epidemic. Sierra Leone has developed a Field Epidemiology Training Programme, emergency operations infrastructure, electronic disease surveillance and response, laboratory resources and national and district Rapid Response Teams. Staff also carry experience from Ebola, COVID-19 and successive mpox outbreaks. The study found, however, that this strength remains vulnerable because much of it depends on a small, experienced cohort and informal personal networks. A national surge list included 74 staff, but it had not been updated for nine months; documented emergency roles or terms of reference existed for only 43 of those people. Just 26 had taken part in a simulation or drill during the preceding year. At district level, nine of 16 districts had updated Rapid Response Team lists, and five had conducted a documented simulation. The researchers interpret surge capacity as real but only partly institutionalised: staff know how to respond, yet the system does not consistently record who is responsible, how roles should be activated or how readiness should be rehearsed.

This concentration of capability was also visible in the statistical analysis. Technical staff with previous outbreak-response experience had substantially higher odds of reporting strong readiness than would be expected from the separate effects of technical training and experience alone. The adjusted odds ratio for their combined profile was 3.41, with a 95 percent confidence interval from 1.62 to 7.18. In practical terms, experienced technical personnel may be compensating for weak organisational systems through knowledge, relationships and the ability to improvise under pressure. That is useful during an emergency but creates institutional risk if those individuals leave. Of the 24 staff who exited during the preceding year, 15 were technical or programme staff, and 11 departures were recorded as movement to nongovernmental organisations, donor-supported projects or international agencies. Partner- or project-supported employees represented 40.7 percent of the workforce. Researchers say parallel employment arrangements can strengthen short-term capacity while complicating retention, reporting lines, career progression and the development of a unified agency identity.

Finance, procurement and decentralisation created additional delays between recognising an event and acting on it. Emergency financial systems averaged 2.3 out of 5, while logistics and supply-chain readiness averaged 2.4. The median time from approval of an activity to release of funds was 21 days, and emergency procurement took a median of 46 days. Sixteen of 43 reviewed emergency procurements, or 37.2 percent, exceeded their planned timelines. Records also documented seven episodes of reagent or personal protective equipment stockouts, while 18 staff advances required a median of 36 days for reimbursement. The agency’s national coordination was stronger than its documented district reach: only eight districts had designated NPHA focal persons, six had records of surveillance feedback to district teams, and deployment from a district request took a median of three days, increasing to five days for remote districts. These bottlenecks matter because outbreaks begin in communities and districts, whereas authority, financing and much of the coordination remain concentrated in Freetown.

The clearest operational signal came from examining the 7-1-7 framework, which separates detection within seven days of emergence, notification within one day of detection and completion of early response within seven days of notification. Across 12 priority events, the median time from emergence to detection was five days and from detection to notification was one day. Yet the median interval from notification to completion of early response was 18 days. Eight events met the detection target, nine met the notification target and only four completed early response within seven days. Delays were most often associated with specimen transport, laboratory confirmation, release of funds, field deployment, supplies and district logistics. The agency could therefore see and communicate public-health signals faster than it could turn them into completed field interventions. The study’s authors argue that this sequence reveals why legal authority, trained personnel and strong partnerships cannot by themselves demonstrate preparedness. For Sierra Leone and similar emerging public health institutes, durable readiness will depend on building integrated human-resource systems, documented surge roles, emergency financing, faster procurement and district routines that continue to function when projects end or experienced responders move on.

The findings also clarify how preparedness should be measured. A high-level assessment may confirm that surveillance, trained personnel or partner coordination exists, while missing the organisational steps that allow those resources to be activated under pressure. Reviewing personnel files, deployment records, procurement timelines and event histories alongside staff accounts therefore provides a more operational test of readiness. In this case, the agreement between perceptions and routine records strengthens the interpretation that administrative systems were not merely viewed unfavourably by employees; they were producing observable gaps in how the agency functioned.

The interaction between technical expertise and outbreak experience is particularly important for interpreting the regression result. The association does not show that either characteristic causes readiness, nor that experienced technical staff can substitute indefinitely for institutional systems. Rather, it suggests that expertise and practical exposure may reinforce one another, enabling a small group to navigate procedures, contacts and decisions more effectively. That pattern can make an organisation appear more capable during familiar emergencies while leaving it exposed to turnover, simultaneous events or threats outside the experience of its established responders. Readiness testing should consequently examine whether procedures work for less experienced staff, not only whether highly experienced personnel can deliver results.

For emerging public health institutes, the practical implication is to treat routine administration as part of the response architecture. Clear job descriptions, induction, appraisal, maintained rosters, delegated authority and documented district links create the conditions for expertise to be transferred and repeatedly used. These measures are less visible than laboratories or emergency operations centres, but they determine whether those assets can be connected into a timely response. Because this study examined one national agency over a defined period and used perceived readiness as one component of its analysis, its associations should not be treated as universal effect estimates. Its value lies instead in identifying testable institutional mechanisms that comparable agencies can examine through their own records, event timelines and role-specific accounts.

Subject of Research: Sierra Leone’s national public health emergency management capacity and operational capability

Article Title: A study of public health emergency management capacity and capability of Sierra Leone’s national public health agency

Article References: Ikoona, E. N., Namulemo, L., Sinnah, M. M., Vandi, M. A., & Sahr, F. (2026). A study of public health emergency management capacity and capability of Sierra Leone’s national public health agency. Journal of Emergency and Disaster Medicine, 2(1), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44467-026-00020-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44467-026-00020-1

Keywords: Sierra Leone, public health emergencies, outbreak response, national public health institutes, health workforce, emergency preparedness, human resource management, surveillance, health systems, public, health, emergency

Power outages frequently coincide with severe weather events. These outages have profound economic and health implications, as interruption of power supply can hinder access to critical services, including medical facilities that rely on electricity for life-support systems, and residential heating or cooling that protects vulnerable populations during extreme temperature conditions. The financial toll associated with widespread outages, compounded by severe weather, can escalate rapidly, leading to billions in losses and significant disruptions to everyday life.

In conducting their research, Do and colleagues analyzed a wealth of data collected from over 1,600 counties in the United States between 2018 and 2020. The focal point of their investigation was the occurrence of large-scale power outages that lasted more than eight hours, in relation to a variety of severe weather incidents such as hurricanes, heavy rainfall, extreme heat waves, and wildfires. Alarmingly, their findings reveal that nearly 75% of the counties surveyed experienced significant power outages during or immediately following severe weather events.

The investigation also highlighted that over 50% of the examined counties faced outages that coincided with multiple severe weather occurrences simultaneously. This simultaneous occurrence of such events poses an additional challenge to emergency management and response planning. Thus, as climate change continues to worsen conditions, the ability of communities to effectively prepare for, respond to, and recover from these compounded events becomes increasingly vital.

A key finding of the study centers on the way in which specific types of severe weather are linked to power outages. The data suggested that outages were most commonly associated with severe precipitation and extreme heat. However, these events are not uniformly distributed across the country. For instance, precipitation-related outages were more prevalent in the Northeast United States, while heat-driven outages were observed more frequently in the Southeast. The study further pointed out a rising trend in co-occurring power outages and wildfires, especially noted in the coastal regions of the West from 2018 to 2020.

The researchers acknowledged a significant limitation in their work—the unavailability of reliable data from certain U.S. regions, such as the Southwest and the Mountain West, which creates gaps in understanding the full scope of how severe weather and power outages intersect in those areas. This knowledge gap underscores the necessity for further research, particularly aimed at generating richer data about these associations and simulating the potential combinations of severe weather in diverse geographic locations. Such future studies would be instrumental in devising more effective strategies to mitigate risks associated with power outages during severe weather events.

In paraphrasing the insights of first author Vivian Do, it is clear that comprehending the dynamics of power outages that occur concurrently with severe weather phenomena is essential. This understanding is crucial for developing proactive strategies aimed at minimizing the deleterious societal impacts as climate conditions evolve and the electrical grid ages. Moreover, anticipating where and when these outages might happen promotes better preparedness.

As we delve deeper into the realities of a warming planet, the robust evidence outlined in the study paints a stark picture. The growing frequency and intensity of severe weather events are not mere statistics but harbingers of an urgent need for action. The implications of this research extend beyond mere academia—they shape policy decisions, emergency management frameworks, and community readiness initiatives meant to confront the dual threats posed by climate change and infrastructure vulnerabilities.

This study serves as a catalytic piece of research that encourages further discourse on climate resilience and the intricacies of power management. The findings compel policymakers, utility companies, and communities to rethink their approaches to disaster response and resource allocation. It is essential to prioritize investments in the electrical grid to ensure it can withstand the increasing strain posed by severe weather events. In doing so, we not only protect our infrastructure but also safeguard public health and economic vitality.

In summary, the work of Do and colleagues provides a pivotal look into the links between severe weather and power outages, showcasing the urgent need for targeted research and resilient infrastructure planning. As the climate continues to shift in unpredictable ways, understanding these relationships will be key to fostering safer, more resilient communities.

By bridging the gap between research and its practical implications, this study underlines the critical role of a coordinated response among stakeholders—from scientists to community planners—that is necessary to counter the existential threats posed by climate change and its cascading effects on essential services.

Through this lens, it becomes evident that the findings of this research are not just localized or momentary issues. Instead, they echo a larger, global crisis. The urgency to adapt can no longer be dismissed and must become central to both local and national discourse. The future depends on how well we heed the warnings and evidence presented to us today.

Subject of Research: Power outages and severe weather events
Article Title: Spatiotemporal patterns of individual and multiple simultaneous severe weather events co-occurring with power outages in the United States, 2018–2020
News Publication Date: 22-Jan-2025
Web References: PLOS Climate article
References: Do V, Wilner LB, Flores NM, McBrien H, Northrop AJ, Casey JA (2025) Spatiotemporal patterns of individual and multiple simultaneous severe weather events co-occurring with power outages in the United States, 2018–2020. PLOS Clim 4(1): e0000523.
Image Credits: PLOS Climate
Keywords: severe weather, power outages, climate change, economic impact, community preparedness, electrical grid resilience