“We lost all we had in a second”: coping with grief and loss after a natural disaster

Abstract

Natural disasters cause immense suffering among affected communities. Most occur in developing countries, which have fewer resources to respond to the resulting traumas and difficulties. As a consequence, most survivors have to rely on their own coping resources and draw from what support remains within family, social networks and the wider community to manage and deal with their losses and consequent emotional distress. Taking the 2004 Asian tsunami as an example, this article reports findings from a qualitative study designed to investigate how survivors responded in Sri Lanka, and the range of coping strategies adopted and resources mobilized. In-depth interviews were conducted with 38 survivors purposively sampled from the Matara district of southern Sri Lanka. Survivors' accounts emphasized the importance of extended supportive networks, religious faith and practices, and cultural traditions in facilitating recovery and sustaining emotional well-being. Government and external aid responses that promoted these, through contributing to the re-establishment of social, cultural, and economic life, were particularly valued by participants. Recourse to professional mental health care and Western psychological interventions was limited and survivors preferred to seek help from traditional and religious healers. Our findings tentatively suggest that long-term mental health following disaster may, in the first instance, be promoted by supporting the re-establishment of those naturally occurring resources through which communities traditionally respond to suffering.

Major Natural Disasters in China, 1985–2014: Occurrence and Damages

“…People are vulnerable to natural disasters, particularly in developing countries, where the availability of disaster relief resources is limited [1,2]. During the last decade alone, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, China, Haiti, and Japan have all experienced natural disasters with high death tolls [3].…”

Contextual Positive Coping as a Factor Contributing to Resilience After Disasters

“…The primary questions survivors are left with are “ Who or what caused this?” and “ How can I explain what happened”? The just world violation here is more existential (Ekanayake, Prince, Sumathipala, Siribaddana, & Morgan, ; Marks, Cherry, & Silva, ), perhaps suggesting that the human experience of the world is highly unpredictable and is therefore neither just nor benevolent at all. Moreover, survivors are thus prompted to question why something bad would happen to them if they are good people (a violation of personal just world beliefs).…”

“…The disaster coping literature notes many positive ways to cope with natural disasters, including practicing emergency preparedness to enhance perceptions of self‐efficacy, mastery, and autonomy; feeling sympathy for less fortunate victims; and being optimistic about eventual outcomes (Rowney, Farvid, & Sibley, ). Religious coping is one of the most widely‐documented positive coping strategies in the literature, and perhaps the one that is most well‐suited for addressing the perceived lack of control associated with natural disasters (Ekanayake et al., ; Marks et al., ; Rowney et al., ; Vazquez et al., ). Religious coping attributes the natural disaster to a higher power, thereby explaining the event and restoring meaning to the chaotic and uncontrollable nature of the survivor's circumstances (Ekanayake et al., ; Rowney et al., ).…”

“…Religious coping is one of the most widely‐documented positive coping strategies in the literature, and perhaps the one that is most well‐suited for addressing the perceived lack of control associated with natural disasters (Ekanayake et al., ; Marks et al., ; Rowney et al., ; Vazquez et al., ). Religious coping attributes the natural disaster to a higher power, thereby explaining the event and restoring meaning to the chaotic and uncontrollable nature of the survivor's circumstances (Ekanayake et al., ; Rowney et al., ). Importantly, this effect can be achieved, albeit with very different results, through either positive or negative mechanisms.…”

The crisis in psychiatry: A public health perspective

“…Following these, psychiatry has had to redefi ne its role and target (Maj, 2012). Under social pressures the role and responsibilities of psychiatry and psychiatrists moved from the treatment of mental disorders, a wide range of well-defi ned and clear nosological entities, to the management of a range of psychological conditions named ' mental health problems ' , which are not proper mental illnesses, but rather psychological consequences caused by the rapid changes in society, such as those following natural disasters (Christodoulou & Christodoulou, 2013;Ekanayake et al, 2013), the economic crisis (De Rosa et al, 2013;Heinz et al, 2013;Whalbeck & McDaid, 2012), and changes in the organization of modern society (Swendsen & Salamon, 2012;Bhugra et al, 2014). As society changes, psychiatrists need to adapt their target, since mental health problems are the results of different biological, social and psychological factors (Lopez-Ibor & Lopez-Ibor, 2013).…”