Ahlke Kip, Luca Weigand, Silvia Valencia, Mark Deady, Pim Cuijpers, Lasse B Sander
{"title":"Prevention of mental disorders after exposure to natural hazards: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Ahlke Kip, Luca Weigand, Silvia Valencia, Mark Deady, Pim Cuijpers, Lasse B Sander","doi":"10.1136/bmjment-2024-301357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Question: </strong>Mental health complaints are increased in survivors of natural hazards and disaster responders. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of psychological and psychosocial interventions for the prevention of mental disorders after exposure to natural hazards.</p><p><strong>Study selection and analysis: </strong>We searched Web of Science, PsycINFO and MEDLINE for peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials evaluating preventive interventions targeting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Trials conducted in both, civilians and disaster responders, were included. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to assess the efficacy of interventions relative to active and passive control conditions.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The results from 10 included studies (5068 participants) did not find preventive interventions to be superior compared with active or passive control conditions regarding symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (<i>g</i>=0.08 and <i>g</i>=0.05) and depression (<i>g</i>=0.13 and <i>g</i>=0.32, respectively). Effects on anxiety symptoms remain unclear. Aggregated effects for all outcomes were significant at follow-up compared with passive controls, but the interpretability is limited by the low number of studies. Intervention effects were not significantly associated with intervention type (psychotherapy vs psychosocial), age or delivery mode (online vs face-to-face). The risk of bias across studies was high.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The current evidence does not allow for any recommendations regarding prevention programmes in the aftermath of natural hazards. A larger body of high-quality research is needed to develop effective and evidence-based preventive interventions for disaster survivors and responders.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>https://osf.io/4es65.</p>","PeriodicalId":72434,"journal":{"name":"BMJ mental health","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11956322/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-301357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Question: Mental health complaints are increased in survivors of natural hazards and disaster responders. This meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of psychological and psychosocial interventions for the prevention of mental disorders after exposure to natural hazards.
Study selection and analysis: We searched Web of Science, PsycINFO and MEDLINE for peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials evaluating preventive interventions targeting symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety. Trials conducted in both, civilians and disaster responders, were included. Random-effect meta-analyses were conducted to assess the efficacy of interventions relative to active and passive control conditions.
Findings: The results from 10 included studies (5068 participants) did not find preventive interventions to be superior compared with active or passive control conditions regarding symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (g=0.08 and g=0.05) and depression (g=0.13 and g=0.32, respectively). Effects on anxiety symptoms remain unclear. Aggregated effects for all outcomes were significant at follow-up compared with passive controls, but the interpretability is limited by the low number of studies. Intervention effects were not significantly associated with intervention type (psychotherapy vs psychosocial), age or delivery mode (online vs face-to-face). The risk of bias across studies was high.
Conclusions: The current evidence does not allow for any recommendations regarding prevention programmes in the aftermath of natural hazards. A larger body of high-quality research is needed to develop effective and evidence-based preventive interventions for disaster survivors and responders.
问:自然灾害幸存者和救灾人员的心理健康投诉有所增加。本荟萃分析评估了心理和社会心理干预措施在自然灾害暴露后预防精神障碍的效果。研究选择和分析:我们检索了Web of Science、PsycINFO和MEDLINE等同行评议的随机对照试验,以评估针对创伤后应激障碍、抑郁和焦虑症状的预防性干预措施。包括在平民和救灾人员中进行的试验。进行随机效应荟萃分析以评估相对于主动和被动控制条件的干预措施的有效性。结果:10项纳入的研究(5068名参与者)的结果显示,在创伤后应激障碍(g=0.08和g=0.05)和抑郁症(g=0.13和g=0.32)的症状方面,预防性干预措施没有优于主动或被动控制条件。对焦虑症状的影响尚不清楚。与被动对照相比,所有结果的综合效应在随访中都很显著,但由于研究数量少,其可解释性受到限制。干预效果与干预类型(心理治疗vs心理社会)、年龄或传递方式(在线vs面对面)没有显著相关。各研究的偏倚风险很高。结论:目前的证据不允许对自然灾害后的预防方案提出任何建议。需要开展更多的高质量研究,为灾害幸存者和响应者制定有效的、基于证据的预防性干预措施。研究注册:https://osf.io/4es65。