Code Orange: A Systematic Review of Psychosocial Disaster Response

Abstract

Introduction:Survivors of mass casualty incidents are vulnerable to both physical and psychological injuries. Hospitals need to triage the walking wounded victims, their loved ones, and witnesses for symptoms of emotional distress to ensure that those who are traumatized benefit from proactive psychological treatment. Hospitals must also manage the influx of searching family and friends, and be able to reunite them with their loved ones, to reduce chaos and prevent hospital skipping.Aim:To analyze previous research on institutional psychosocial disaster response, what has or has not worked, and lessons learned in order to develop evidence-based future planning suggestions.Methods:A literature search was conducted on the following electronic databases: (Medline 2007 to July 2018), (Embase 2007 to July 2018), (PsycInfo 2007 to July 2018). A combination of subject headings and free text keywords were used to perform the searches. After removing duplicates, abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers for the following inclusion criteria: 1) crisis intervention (in a disaster situation), 2) mention of psychosocial response or lack thereof and lessons learned, 3)relevant outcomes, 4) OECD countries, and 5) journal articles published 2007–Present. Review articles were excluded. Primary and secondary reviewers are in the process of discussing discrepancies. Data extraction will be conducted from all articles that meet the inclusion criteria. Key themes to be analyzed include psychological casualties, searching family and friends, and family reunification plans.Results:The initial search yielded 6,267 results. 5,294 articles remained after duplicates were removed. Of the 4,890 reviewed thus far, 269 articles met inclusion criteria.Discussion:Although a wealth of existing literature notes the need for an effective psychosocial response in mass trauma and disaster situations, no prior study has analyzed the efficacy of such interventions or laid out an evidence-based plan. This study will fill this much-needed gap in the literature.

Double jeopardy; What happens when an epidemic is followed by an earthquake?

“…Such disasters usually involve emergence of a novel threatening agent (that may have both “traditional”, and “non-traditional” features), they easily crosses functional and societal boundaries and settings (making it difficult to disentangle the initial threat from its’ immediate and distant consequences), and are more critically shaped by mass communication systems. ( Rodríguez et al., 2018 , Korman et al., 2019 , Albrecht, 2018 , Kaniasty, 2019 ) Crises and disasters are now even more critically socially constructed, and they often have more significant symbolic than material importance.…”

“…( Rodríguez et al., 2018 , Reifels et al., 2013 , Tsutsumi et al., 2015 , Généreux et al., 2019 ) Such a multifaceted traumatic exposures could have a significant long-term effects on mental health, as alongside a deep feeling of uncertainty with limited possibilities for “healthy” coping streaming from pandemic setting, came a similarly distressful feeling of insecurity streaming from earthquakes. ( Korman et al., 2019 , Horesh and Brown, 2020 , Reifels et al., 2013 , Lowe et al., 2019 , North et al., 2012 , North and Pfefferbaum, 2013 ) In that sense, although the long-term effect of the earthquake occurring alongside the ongoing pandemic cannot be fully currently assessed, it is reasonable to believe that those are going to be more significant than both these adversities occurring apart from each other.…”

Quantifying Psychosocial Impacts From Coastal Hazards for Cost-Benefit Analysis in Eastern Quebec, Canada

“…There is a recently growing canon of literature pertaining to the health and psychosocial impacts of natural hazards (Korman et al, 2019). The extent and degree of these impacts are characterized by associated mental health problems, such as the development of post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) and anxiety and depressive disorders (Alderman et al, 2012).…”

“…However, case studies abound for various types of hazards around the world (e.g., forest fires: Kulig and Dabravolskaj, 2020;oil spills: Gill et al, 2016;nuclear accidents: Midorikawa et al, 2017;train derailments: Généreux et al, 2019floods: Johal and Mounsey, 2016). The first reviews of such literature (e.g., Korman et al, 2019) indicate that the subject has attained a certain maturity. However, there is a lack of quantitative data on psychosocial impacts, which directly limits its integration into CBA.…”

The Integration of Mental Health and Psychosocial Support and Disaster Risk Reduction: A Mapping and Review

“…Thus, the current review was intended to provide a narrative exploration of current practices, projects, materials and conceptualizations integrating MHPSS components and DRR approaches or principles primarily in the preparedness and prevention phases. This focus was chosen due to the relative abundance of existing literature discussing MHPSS response and recovery approaches [11][12][13][14][15] and in order to address the 2015-2030 Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction's challenge to expand more "upstream" approaches. More specifically, the objectives of this review were to (1) identify existing published and unpublished literature; completed, in progress, or planned projects and operations; and available guidance or training materials related to MHPSS and DRR integration, (2) determine the current domains of action where MHPSS and DRR have been integrated, and (3) discuss potential avenues for further integrating these two fields.…”