Weighing the Costs of Disaster: Consequences, Risks, and Resilience in Individuals, Families, and Communities
01 Jan 2010-Psychological Science in the Public Interest (SAGE Publications)-Vol. 11, Iss: 1, pp 1-49
TL;DR: It is argued that when researchers focus on only the most scientifically sound research--studies that use prospective designs or include multivariate analyses of predictor and outcome measures--relatively clear conclusions about the psychological parameters of disasters emerge, and that social relationships can improve after disasters, especially within the immediate family.
Abstract: Disasters typically strike quickly and cause great harm. Unfortunately, because of the spontaneous and chaotic nature of disasters, the psychological consequences have proved exceedingly difficult to assess. Published reports have often overestimated a disaster's psychological cost to survivors, suggesting, for example, that many if not most survivors will develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); at the same time, these reports have underestimated the scope of the disaster's broader impact in other domains. We argue that such ambiguities can be attributed to methodological limitations. When we focus on only the most scientifically sound research--studies that use prospective designs or include multivariate analyses of predictor and outcome measures--relatively clear conclusions about the psychological parameters of disasters emerge. We summarize the major aspects of these conclusions in five key points and close with a brief review of possible implications these points suggest for disaster intervention. 1. Disasters cause serious psychological harm in a minority of exposed individuals. People exposed to disaster show myriad psychological problems, including PTSD, grief, depression, anxiety, stress-related health costs, substance abuse, and suicidal ideation. However, severe levels of these problems are typically observed only in a relatively small minority of exposed individuals. In adults, the proportion rarely exceeds 30% of most samples, and in the vast majority of methodologically sound studies, the level is usually considerably lower. Among youth, elevated symptoms are common in the first few months following a high-impact disaster, but again, chronic symptom elevations rarely exceed 30% of the youth sampled. 2. Disasters produce multiple patterns of outcome, including psychological resilience. In addition to chronic dysfunction, other patterns of disaster outcome are typically observed. Some survivors recover their psychological equilibrium within a period ranging from several months to 1 or 2 years. A sizeable proportion, often more than half of those exposed, experience only transient distress and maintain a stable trajectory of healthy functioning or resilience. Resilient outcomes have been evidenced across different methodologies, including recent studies that identified patterns of outcome using relatively sophisticated data analytic approaches, such as latent growth mixture modeling. 3. Disaster outcome depends on a combination of risk and resilience factors. As is true for most highly aversive events, individual differences in disaster outcomes are informed by a number of unique risk and resilience factors, including variables related to the context in which the disaster occurs, variables related to proximal exposure during the disaster, and variables related to distal exposure in the disaster's aftermath. Multivariate studies indicate that there is no one single dominant predictor of disaster outcomes. Rather, as with traumatic life events more generally, most predictor variables exert small to moderate effects, and it is the combination or additive total of risk and resilience factors that informs disaster outcomes. 4. Disasters put families, neighborhoods, and communities at risk. Although methodologically complex research on this facet of disasters' impact is limited, the available literature suggests that disasters meaningfully influence relationships within and across broad social units. Survivors often receive immediate support from their families, relatives, and friends, and for this reason many survivors subsequently claim that the experience brought them closer together. On the whole, however, the empirical evidence suggests a mixed pattern of findings. There is evidence that social relationships can improve after disasters, especially within the immediate family. However, the bulk of evidence indicates that the stress of disasters can erode both interpersonal relationships and sense of community. Regardless of how they are affected, postdisaster social relations are important predictors of coping success and resilience. 5. The remote effects of a disaster in unexposed populations are generally limited and transient. Increased incidence of extreme distress and pathology are often reported in remote regions hundreds if not thousands of miles from a disaster's geographic locale. Careful review of these studies indicates, however, that people in regions remote to a disaster may experience transient distress, but increased incidence of psychopathology is likely only among populations with preexisting vulnerabilities (e.g., prior trauma or psychiatric illness) or actual remote exposure (e.g., loss of a loved one in the disaster). Finally, we review the implications for intervention. There is considerable interest in prophylactic psychological interventions, such as critical incident stress debriefing (CISD), that can be applied globally to all exposed survivors in the immediate aftermath of disaster. Multiple studies have shown, however, that CISD is not only ineffective but in some cases can actually be psychologically harmful. Other less invasive and more practical forms of immediate intervention have been developed for use with both children and adults. Although promising, controlled evaluations of these less invasive interventions are not yet available. The available research suggests that psychological interventions are more likely to be effective during the short- and long-term recovery periods (1 month to several years postdisaster), especially when used in combination with some form of screening for at-risk individuals. Such interventions should also target the maintenance and enhancement of tangible, informational, and social-emotional support resources throughout the affected community. Language: en
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper, inspired by the plenary panel at the 2013 meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Steven Southwick and multidisciplinary panelists tackle some of the most pressing current questions in the field of resilience research including how do the authors define resilience, what are the most important determinants of resilience, and how are new technologies informing the science of resilience?
Abstract: In this paper, inspired by the plenary panel at the 2013 meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, Dr. Steven Southwick (chair) and multidisciplinary panelists Drs. George Bonanno, Ann Masten, Catherine Panter-Brick, and Rachel Yehuda tackle some of the most pressing current questions in the field of resilience research including: (1) how do we define resilience, (2) what are the most important determinants of resilience, (3) how are new technologies informing the science of resilience, and (4) what are the most effective ways to enhance resilience? These multidisciplinary experts provide insight into these difficult questions, and although each of the panelists had a slightly different definition of resilience, most of the proposed definitions included a concept of healthy, adaptive, or integrated positive functioning over the passage of time in the aftermath of adversity. The panelists agreed that resilience is a complex construct and it may be defined differently in the context of individuals, families, organizations, societies, and cultures. With regard to the determinants of resilience, there was a consensus that the empirical study of this construct needs to be approached from a multiple level of analysis perspective that includes genetic, epigenetic, developmental, demographic, cultural, economic, and social variables. The empirical study of determinates of resilience will inform efforts made at fostering resilience, with the recognition that resilience may be enhanced on numerous levels (e.g., individual, family, community, culture). Keywords: Resilience; stress; trauma; post-traumatic stress disorder Responsible Editors: Ananda Amstadter, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, VA, USA; Nicole Nugent, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, RI, USA. This paper is part of the Special Issue: Resilience and Trauma . More papers from this issue can be found at http://www.eurojnlofpsychotraumatol.net (Published: 1 October 2014) Citation: European Journal of Psychotraumatology 2014, 5 : 25338 - http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v5.25338
1,358 citations
TL;DR: The question of whether resilience-building interventions can actually make people more resilient is critically evaluated, and a set of prototypical outcome patterns are identified that show multiple independent predictors of resilient outcomes.
Abstract: Initial research on loss and potentially traumatic events (PTEs) has been dominated by either a psychopathological approach emphasizing individual dysfunction or an event approach emphasizing average differences between exposed and nonexposed groups. We consider the limitations of these approaches and review more recent research that has focused on the heterogeneity of outcomes following aversive events. Using both traditional analytic tools and sophisticated latent trajectory modeling, this research has identified a set of prototypical outcome patterns. Typically, the most common outcome following PTEs is a stable trajectory of healthy functioning or resilience. We review research showing that resilience is not the result of a few dominant factors, but rather that there are multiple independent predictors of resilient outcomes. Finally, we critically evaluate the question of whether resilience-building interventions can actually make people more resilient, and we close with suggestions for future researc...
856 citations
Cites background or methods from "Weighing the Costs of Disaster: Con..."
...Interestingly, for some types of PTEs (e.g., disaster), prior experience with similar events predicts better adjustment at subsequent exposures (see Bonanno et al. 2010), presumably because prior experience helps a person prepare for and understand the pending sequence of events....
[...]
...In the service of parsimony, we have adopted a distinction between proximal and distal aspects of exposure (Bonanno et al. 2010)....
[...]
...…and external resources, such as safety, shelter, money, and physical well-being, following a trauma is likely to limit the extent to which individuals can benefit from early interventions that target anxiety and affective symptoms (Bonanno et al. 2010, Litz et al. 2002, McNally et al. 2003)....
[...]
...We review two approaches that have dominated the literature (Bonanno & Mancini 2010, Bonanno et al. 2010): the focus on extreme reactions and psychopathology and the focus on average levels of adjustment as a means of comparing exposed and nonexposed groups....
[...]
...A number of personality variables have also been associated with favorable adjustment after PTEs (Bonanno 2005, Bonanno et al. 2010)....
[...]
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, a broad framework within which to consider the importance of managerial and organisational integration is provided, and a wider educational and training issues which influence not only conceptual skills but also attitude are raised.
Abstract: So far I have attempted to provide a broad framework within which to consider the importance of managerial and organisational integration. Inevitably in so doing I have found it necessary to raise wider educational and training issues which influence not only conceptual skills but also attitude. Indeed I have, on occasion, moved my argument or perspective to even wider considerations; issues pertaining to national culture. Culture, education policy or structure, industrial organisation, all interact in subtle and perhaps devious forms. Thus a cultural framework which is “overly status or class conscious” reflects this in its educational system. Most likely it is more predisposed to segment its secondary and tertiary education systems according to similar principles. It may well encourage separation of the university and technical college or polytechnic system to a degree that is industrially and commercially counterproductive — and integratively devisive. Such an educational system will no doubt require “preselection and filtering” which relies upon early, too early, subject specialisation; it may, subsequently, influence adversely the need for individuals and subgroups to communicate more intimately and to organise themselves more closely. In fact it may ensure the continuance of barriers, hierarchies, and polarised attitudes of class, structure and function all the way across and through commerce and industry.
785 citations
TL;DR: Progress over the past decade in research on the effects of mass trauma experiences on children and youth, focusing on natural disasters, war, and terrorism, is highlighted, suggesting guidelines for disaster preparedness and response.
Abstract: This review highlights progress over the past decade in research on the effects of mass trauma experiences on children and youth, focusing on natural disasters, war, and terrorism. Conceptual advances are reviewed in terms of prevailing risk and resilience frameworks that guide basic and translational research. Recent evidence on common components of these models is evaluated, including dose effects, mediators and moderators, and the individual or contextual differences that predict risk or resilience. New research horizons with profound implications for health and well-being are discussed, particularly in relation to plausible models for biological embedding of extreme stress. Strong consistencies are noted in this literature, suggesting guidelines for disaster preparedness and response. At the same time, there is a notable shortage of evidence on effective interventions for child and youth victims. Practical and theory-informative research on strategies to protect children and youth victims and promote their resilience is a global priority.
715 citations
References
More filters
11 Jun 2013
113,134 citations
TL;DR: An issue concerning the criteria for tic disorders is highlighted, and how this might affect classification of dyskinesias in psychotic spectrum disorders.
Abstract: Given the recent attention to movement abnormalities in psychosis spectrum disorders (e.g., prodromal/high-risk syndromes, schizophrenia) (Mittal et al., 2008; Pappa and Dazzan, 2009), and an ongoing discussion pertaining to revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders (DSM) for the upcoming 5th edition, we would like to take this opportunity to highlight an issue concerning the criteria for tic disorders, and how this might affect classification of dyskinesias in psychotic spectrum disorders.
Rapid, non-rhythmic, abnormal movements can appear in psychosis spectrum disorders, as well as in a host of commonly co-occurring conditions, including Tourette’s Syndrome and Transient Tic Disorder (Kerbeshian et al., 2009). Confusion can arise when it becomes necessary to determine whether an observed movement (e.g., a sudden head jerk) represents a spontaneous dyskinesia (i.e., spontaneous transient chorea, athetosis, dystonia, ballismus involving muscle groups of the arms, legs, trunk, face, and/or neck) or a tic (i.e., stereotypic or patterned movements defined by the relationship to voluntary movement, acute and chronic time course, and sensory urges). Indeed, dyskinetic movements such as dystonia (i.e., sustained muscle contractions, usually producing twisting and repetitive movements or abnormal postures or positions) closely resemble tics in a patterned appearance, and may only be visually discernable by attending to timing differences (Gilbert, 2006).
When turning to the current DSM-IV TR for clarification, the description reads: “Tic Disorders must be distinguished from other types of abnormal movements that may accompany general medical conditions (e.g., Huntington’s disease, stroke, Lesch-Nyhan syndrome, Wilson’s disease, Sydenham’s chorea, multiple sclerosis, postviral encephalitis, head injury) and from abnormal movements that are due to the direct effects of a substance (e.g., a neuroleptic medication)”. However, as it is written, it is unclear if psychosis falls under one such exclusionary medical disorder. The “direct effects of a substance” criteria, referencing neuroleptic medications, further contributes to the uncertainty around this issue. As a result, ruling-out or differentiating tics in psychosis spectrum disorders is at best, a murky endeavor.
Historically, the advent of antipsychotic medication in the 1950s has contributed to the confusion about movement signs in psychiatric populations. Because neuroleptic medications produce characteristic movement disorder in some patients (i.e. extrapyramidal side effects), drug-induced movement disturbances have been the focus of research attention in psychotic disorders. However, accumulating data have documented that spontaneous dyskinesias, including choreoathetodic movements, can occur in medication naive adults with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (Pappa and Dazzan, 2009), as well as healthy first-degree relatives of chronically ill schizophrenia patients (McCreadie et al., 2003). Taken together, this suggests that movement abnormalities may reflect pathogenic processes underlying some psychotic disorders (Mittal et al., 2008; Pappa and Dazzan, 2009).
More specifically, because spontaneous hyperkinetic movements are believed to reflect abnormal striatal dopamine activity (DeLong and Wichmann, 2007), and dysfunction in this same circuit is also proposed to contribute to psychosis, it is possible that spontaneous dyskinesias serve as an outward manifestation of circuit dysfunction underlying some schizophrenia-spectrum symptoms (Walker, 1994). Further, because these movements precede the clinical onset of psychotic symptoms, sometimes occurring in early childhood (Walker, 1994), and may steadily increase during adolescence among populations at high-risk for schizophrenia (Mittal et al., 2008), observable dyskinesias could reflect a susceptibility that later interacts with environmental and neurodevelopmental factors, in the genesis of psychosis.
In adolescents who meet criteria for a prodromal syndrome (i.e., the period preceding formal onset of psychotic disorders characterized by subtle attenuated positive symptoms coupled with a decline in functioning), there is sometimes a history of childhood conditions which are also characterized by suppressible tics or tic like movements (Niendam et al., 2009). On the other hand, differentiating between tics and dyskinesias has also complicated research on childhood disorders such as Tourette syndrome (Kompoliti and Goetz, 1998; Gilbert, 2006).
We propose consideration of more explicit and operationalized criteria for differentiating tics and dyskinesias, based on empirically derived understanding of neural mechanisms. Further, revisions of the DSM should allow for the possibility that movement abnormalities might reflect neuropathologic processes underlying the etiology of psychosis for a subgroup of patients. Psychotic disorders might also be included among the medical disorders that are considered a rule-out for tics.
Related to this, the reliability of movement assessment needs to be improved, and this may require more training for mental health professionals in movement symptoms. Although standardized assessment of movement and neurological abnormalities is common in research settings, it has been proposed that an examination of neuromotor signs should figure in the assessment of any patient, and be as much a part of the patient assessment as the mental state examination (Picchioni and Dazzan, 2009).
To this end it is important for researchers and clinicians to be aware of differentiating characteristics for these two classes of abnormal movement. For example, tics tend to be more complex than myoclonic twitches, and less flowing than choreoathetodic movements (Kompoliti and Goetz, 1998). Patients with tics often describe a sensory premonition or urge to perform a tic, and the ability to postpone tics at the cost of rising inner tension (Gilbert, 2006). For example, one study showed that patients with tic disorders could accurately distinguish tics from other movement abnormalities based on the subjective experience of some voluntary control of tics (Lang, 1991). Another differentiating factor derives from the relationship of the movement in question to other voluntary movements. Tics in one body area rarely occur during purposeful and voluntary movements in that same body area whereas dyskinesia are often exacerbated by voluntary movement (Gilbert, 2006). Finally, it is noteworthy that tics wax and wane in frequency and intensity and migrate in location over time, often becoming more complex and peaking between the ages of 9 and 14 years (Gilbert, 2006). In the case of dyskinesias among youth at-risk for psychosis, there is evidence that the movements tend to increase in severity and frequency as the individual approaches the mean age of conversion to schizophrenia spectrum disorders (Mittal et al., 2008).
As revisions to the DSM are currently underway in preparation for the new edition (DSM V), we encourage greater attention to the important, though often subtle, distinctions among subtypes of movement abnormalities and their association with psychiatric syndromes.
67,017 citations
TL;DR: There is evidence consistent with both main effect and main effect models for social support, but each represents a different process through which social support may affect well-being.
Abstract: Examines whether the positive association between social support and well-being is attributable more to an overall beneficial effect of support (main- or direct-effect model) or to a process of support protecting persons from potentially adverse effects of stressful events (buffering model). The review of studies is organized according to (1) whether a measure assesses support structure (the existence of relationships) or function (the extent to which one's interpersonal relationships provide particular resources) and (2) the degree of specificity (vs globality) of the scale. Special attention is given to methodological characteristics that are requisite for a fair comparison of the models. It is concluded that there is evidence consistent with both models. Evidence for the buffering model is found when the social support measure assesses the perceived availability of interpersonal resources that are responsive to the needs elicited by stressful events. Evidence for a main effect model is found when the support measure assesses a person's degree of integration in a large social network. Both conceptualizations of social support are correct in some respects, but each represents a different process through which social support may affect well-being. Implications for theories of social support processes and for the design of preventive interventions are discussed.
14,570 citations
"Weighing the Costs of Disaster: Con..." refers background in this paper
...A great deal has been written about the important role social support plays in adaptation, both to aversive life events (Brewin et al., 2000) and everyday strains and stressors (e.g., S. Cohen & Wills, 1985)....
[...]
TL;DR: The prevalence of psychiatric disorders is greater than previously thought to be the case, and morbidity is more highly concentrated than previously recognized in roughly one sixth of the population who have a history of three or more comorbid disorders.
Abstract: Background: This study presents estimates of lifetime and 12-month prevalence of 14 DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders from the National Comorbidity Survey, the first survey to administer a structured psychiatric interview to a national probability sample in the United States. Methods: The DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders among persons aged 15 to 54 years in the noninstitutionalized civilian population of the United States were assessed with data collected by lay interviewers using a revised version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Results: Nearly 50% of respondents reported at least one lifetime disorder, and close to 30% reported at least one 12-month disorder. The most common disorders were major depressive episode, alcohol dependence, social phobia, and simple phobia. More than half of all lifetime disorders occurred in the 14% of the population who had a history of three or more comorbid disorders. These highly comorbid people also included the vast majority of people with severe disorders. Less than 40% of those with a lifetime disorder had ever received professional treatment, and less than 20% of those with a recent disorder had been in treatment during the past 12 months. Consistent with previous risk factor research, it was found that women had elevated rates of affective disorders and anxiety disorders, that men had elevated rates of substance use disorders and antisocial personality disorder, and that most disorders declined with age and with higher socioeconomic status. Conclusions: The prevalence of psychiatric disorders is greater than previously thought to be the case. Furthermore, this morbidity is more highly concentrated than previously recognized in roughly one sixth of the population who have a history of three or more comorbid disorders. This suggests that the causes and consequences of high comorbidity should be the focus of research attention. The majority of people with psychiatric disorders fail to obtain professional treatment. Even among people with a lifetime history of three or more comorbid disorders, the proportion who ever obtain specialty sector mental health treatment is less than 50%. These results argue for the importance of more outreach and more research on barriers to professional help-seeking.
11,648 citations
"Weighing the Costs of Disaster: Con..." refers background in this paper
...national surveys also show that up to 50% of persons in the general population report at least one lifetime psychiatric disorder, and close to 30% report at least one 12-month disorder (Kessler et al., 1994)....
[...]
...The results of U.S. national surveys also show that up to 50% of persons in the general population report at least one lifetime psychiatric disorder, and close to 30% report at least one 12-month disorder (Kessler et al., 1994)....
[...]