Coping With the Impact of Working in a Conflict Zone

Hibberd, Jessamy M.; Greenberg, Neil

doi:10.1097/jom.0b013e3182135973

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 33 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While some studies suggest longer deployments increased the risk of adverse psychological health effects (Ames et al, 2007;Hibberd & Greenberg, 2011;McCarroll et al, 2000), possibly as a result of increased exposure to an accumulation of highly challenging exposures, other findings on this topic have been less consistent. Thus further research on the impact of deployment length and frequency is required.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…While many emergency responders view work overseas positively (Hibberd & Greenberg, 2011;Thoresen et al, 2009) some return with psychological problems (Shah et al, 2007). The Health and Safety Executive (2007) identified six primary workplace stressors: work demands; control over work; support; relationships; role and responsibilities and organisational change.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Risk and resilience factors affecting the psychological wellbeing of individuals deployed in humanitarian relief roles after a disaster

Brooks

Dunn

Sage

et al. 2015

Journal of Mental Health

Self Cite

127

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As well as role-specific stressors, many occupational stressors not specific to humanitarian relief (e.g. poor leadership, poor support) present a significant health hazard to relief workers. Humanitarian organisations should prioritise strengthening relationships between team members and supervisors, and dealing effectively with non-role-specific stressors, to improve the psychological resilience of their workforce.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk and resilience factors affecting the psychological wellbeing of individuals deployed in humanitarian relief roles after a disaster

Brooks

Dunn

Sage

et al. 2015

Journal of Mental Health

Self Cite

127

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research has shown that many aspects of humanitarian work might affect psychological well-being, [1][2][3][4][5][6] although emergency workers responding to a disaster overseas often have viewed their work positively. 6,7 In this study, we sought to understand the experiences of FCO staff in Japan after the 2011 earthquake. Our objective was to identify factors that increased or alleviated their stress.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responding to a Radiological Crisis: Experiences of British Foreign Office Staff in Japan After the Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown

Bakhshi

Lynn-Nicholson

Jones

et al. 2014

Disaster med. public health prep.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To identify factors that affected well-being among British embassy staff based in Japan after the 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown. Methods: In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 36 members of staff 8 to 9 months after the earthquake. Results: Participants described their crisis work as stressful, exciting, and something of which they were proud. Aside from disaster-specific stressors, factors identified as stressful included unclear roles, handing over work to new personnel, being assigned to office-based work, feeling that work was not immediately beneficial to the public, not taking good-quality breaks, and difficulties with relatives. The radiation risk provoked mixed feelings, with most participants being reassured by contact with senior scientists. Conclusions: Interventions to safeguard the well-being of personnel during crisis work must consider the impact of a broad range of stressors. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2014;8:397-403) Key Words: radiation, stress, occupational health O n March 11, 2011, an earthquake of magnitude 9.0 struck the northeast coast of Japan and triggered a tsunami. Waves of up to 39 m travelled inland as far as 6 miles and flooded approximately 217 sq miles of mainland Japan. The cooling system at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (150 miles northeast of Tokyo) failed as a result. This failure led to a nuclear meltdown, a series of explosions, and the release of radioactive materials. Approximately 18 500 people were believed to have died from the earthquake and tsunami (mainly by drowning), although no deaths resulting from shortterm radiation exposure have been reported. The disaster also caused extensive damage to buildings and infrastructure, and resulted in widespread concern about the possible spread of radioactive contamination in groundwater.The nuclear emergency led the Japanese authorities to issue an evacuation order for everyone living and working within a 20-km radius of the Fukushima power plant to prevent exposure to radiation. Thousands of people were asked to leave their homes and businesses immediately, in a chaotic and ultimately controversial evacuation. Other countries, such as the United Kingdom and France issued their own advice to their nationals who were in Japan.The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) advised British nationals to stay at least 60 km away and to consider leaving the country, while local FCO staff distributed potassium iodide tablets to individuals choosing to remain in northeastern Japan. They also provided regular updates from British scientific authorities, attempted to check on the wellbeing of all British nationals in affected regions, and provided assistance to nationals requiring relocation or emergency travel documents. These activities were undertaken by staff already in Japan, who were supplemented by rapid deployment teams (RDTs) of staff trained to provide additional support during a crisis. While many studies have examined the needs of members of th...

show abstract

“…The review also found that longer tour lengths were associated with increased rates of alcohol problems and posttraumatic stress disorder [8], increased rates of diagnosis of mental disorders for the wives of deployed personnel [5] and increased spousal aggression on return from tour [6]. While these conclusions were mostly derived from military studies, there has also been research carried out in other organizations including those that employ international relief workers [4,9,10]. This previous review [3] revealed a number of practical conclusions, including a potential for detrimental consequences when deployment length is extended [8,11], when personnel deal with circumstances outside their control or if a diplomat's future plans are perceived as unpredictable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deployment guidelines for diplomats: current policy and practice

Dunn

Kemp²,

Patel

et al. 2015

OCCMED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Coping With the Impact of Working in a Conflict Zone

Abstract: Although personnel who went to war zones or suffered trauma were more psychologically symptomatic, the increased burden of symptoms was not associated with frank illness.

Cited by 12 publications

References 33 publications

Risk and resilience factors affecting the psychological wellbeing of individuals deployed in humanitarian relief roles after a disaster

Risk and resilience factors affecting the psychological wellbeing of individuals deployed in humanitarian relief roles after a disaster

Responding to a Radiological Crisis: Experiences of British Foreign Office Staff in Japan After the Fukushima Nuclear Meltdown

Deployment guidelines for diplomats: current policy and practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About