This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Introduction Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of disasters. Recent successive disasters have adversely affected the mental health of individuals and communities; however, little is known about their impact on the psychology workforce. Objectives We examined the experiences of Australian psychologists who worked during the 2019/2020 bushfires, other climate‐related disasters and the COVID‐19 pandemic to identify key challenges and opportunities to better prepare the workforce for future disasters. Methods We conducted semi‐structured interviews in 2022 with 12 key informants from professional psychology associations, private practices, public services and non‐governmental organizations (NGOs). Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis framed by the social‐ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner 1979; The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design). Findings Psychologists described multi‐level challenges associated with bushfires and COVID‐19, including increased acuity of client presentation, rising psychologist burnout, simultaneously managing disasters personally alongside their communities and adapting to new contexts. Results suggest many possible ways to better support psychologists to respond to the personal and professional challenges of ongoing disasters, and improve the psychological workforce capacity, such as increasing support and training, workforce expansion, systemic improvements to disaster response and additional overarching mental health system funding. Implications Our findings indicate that the psychology workforce is underprepared for supporting clients during ongoing disasters and that systemic changes across multiple levels are required to enable psychologists to effectively support their clients, their communities and their own well‐being as climate change progresses.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pitt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: