A new study published in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry looked at the long-term mental health impact of disasters.
“The US, like other countries, is constantly confronted with a variety of natural and human-induced disasters, sometimes accompanied by severe human losses and significant social and economic impacts,” lead author Michel L.A. Dückers told us. Dückers hails from the ARQ National Psychotrauma Center and the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. “The impact of disasters on mental health, and the factors that influence it, have received substantial attention from scholars in recent decades. »
However, the long-term impact has never been systematically reviewed. Moreover, while it is known that many factors determine the prevalence of mental health problems in a population, reviews and meta-analyses to date have often overlooked the combined role of multiple factors.
“Since the long-term impact remains largely uncharted territory, and given that several earlier attempts failed to produce comprehensive, or, as you might say, ‘controlled’ estimates, we deliberately avoided preconceptions about what the results would be,” Dückers told us. “A review of the existing literature reveals that this gap has persisted for a long time.”
While the researchers thoroughly examined whether other reviews were available, they found that most overview studies typically only cover periods of two to four years.
To complete their study the research team first designed the statistical model, meticulously verified the data extracted from the included studies, and then executed the model.
“We quickly found that time was the most significant predictor of mental health outcomes,” Dückers told us. “When accounting for all factors simultaneously such as disaster type (natural vs. human-made), event types (earthquake, storm, flood, shooting) mental health categories, population age, study quality, and country, these other variables became far less influential.”
Earlier overview studies suggest a gradual decline in post-disaster mental health burdens, and this new study confirms this pattern during the initial months and years.
“But that’s where the story took an unexpected turn,” Dückers told us. “What we didn’t anticipate, and what, as a David Lynch fan, I’m tempted to call a ‘Twin Peaks’ phenomenon, was the later increase in mental health issues.”
That aligns with the concept of a ‘second disaster’ in disaster psychology, Dückers explained, referring to the social and health consequences that follow the initial event. While less tangible, these effects are undeniably meaningful and costly, particularly in economic terms, such as income loss and treatment expenses.
Further research is needed to explore what happens beyond the four-year mark and to address the gaps in measurement data.
“Only by doing so can we confirm whether additional peaks occur and, crucially, identify the factors responsible for them, whether acting separately or in combination,” Dückers told us. “This understanding is essential for developing ‘early warning systems’ to anticipate later social and psychological impacts and to implement effective remedial measures. »
The mental health impact of disasters is always shaped by a combination of disaster exposure including subsequent problems and stressors and the individual vulnerabilities of those affected. While the 71 papers meeting the researchers’ criteria did not systematically provide this information, it is essential for thoroughly understanding the mechanisms behind these impacts and how they evolve over time.
“This study should be replicated to focus specifically on the long-term population effects of war and humanitarian conflicts,” Dückers told us. “The same approach should also be applied to epidemics and pandemics, including COVID-19. Although COVID-19 may seem like a thing of the past, we still lack a comprehensive understanding of how its effects continue to influence daily life in communities worldwide. »