Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Previous studies have reported high prevalence of common mental disorders in populations affected by natural hazards. Yet, it remains largely unknown to what extent the prevalence exceeds that of populations with similar backgrounds that have not been exposed to natural hazards. We conducted a meta-analysis comparing prevalence and symptom severity of mental disorders in survivors of natural hazards compared to non-exposed controls. We identified 41 reports of 33 studies with 30,508 participants and conducted random effect meta-analyses. Being hazard-exposed (vs. non-exposed) was associated with significantly increased odds for current posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in the first year after the event (OR = 4.46, 95% CI 2.15; 9.26; n = 8,808) and in the long-term (mean: 12 years post-hazard, OR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.32; 2.57; n = 2,199). There was an increased likelihood of current depression diagnosis on average four years following a hazard (OR, 3.38, 95% CI 2.18; 5.26; n = 5,207). Three-level models showed significantly higher symptom severity of PTSD and depression in the hazard-exposed compared to the non-exposed group with moderate-to-large effect. Findings on other mental disorders were constrained by the limited number of available studies. Our results suggest that being exposed to natural hazards is associated with a considerable increased long-term risk of PTSD and depression relative to non-exposure. The findings highlight the need for both effective prevention and treatment as part of climate change mitigation strategies. • We compared mental disorders in natural hazard-exposed vs. non-exposed samples. • Within one year post-event, exposed samples showed 4.5 times higher PTSD odds. • PTSD prevalence remained significantly elevated for on average 12 years post-event. • The odds of depression were about three-fold in the first four years post-event. • Results support informed action planning and climate change mitigation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kip et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: