↓ Skip to main content

The English National Cohort Study of Flooding and Health: the change in the prevalence of psychological morbidity at year two

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The English National Cohort Study of Flooding and Health: the change in the prevalence of psychological morbidity at year two
Published in
BMC Public Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12889-018-5236-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daiga Jermacane, Thomas David Waite, Charles R. Beck, Angie Bone, Richard Amlôt, Mark Reacher, Sari Kovats, Ben Armstrong, Giovanni Leonardi, G. James Rubin, Isabel Oliver

Abstract

The longer term impact of flooding on health is poorly understood. In 2015, following widespread flooding in the UK during winter 2013/14, Public Health England launched the English National Study of Flooding and Health. The study identified a higher prevalence of probable psychological morbidity one year after exposure to flooding. We now report findings after two years. In year two (2016), a self-assessment questionnaire including flooding-related exposures and validated instruments to screen for probable anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was sent to all participants who consented to further follow-up. Participants exposure status was categorised according to responses in year one; we assessed for exposure to new episodes of flooding and continuing flood-related problems in respondents homes. We calculated the prevalence and odds ratio for each outcome by exposure group relative to unaffected participants, adjusting for confounders. We used the McNemar test to assess change in outcomes between year one and year two. In year two, 1064 (70%) people responded. The prevalence of probable psychological morbidity remained elevated amongst flooded participants [n = 339] (depression 10.6%, anxiety 13.6%, PTSD 24.5%) and disrupted participants [n = 512] (depression 4.1%, anxiety 6.4%, PTSD 8.9%), although these rates were reduced compared to year one. A greater reduction in anxiety 7.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.6-9.9) was seen than depression 3.8% (95% CI 1.5-6.1) and PTSD: 6.6% (95% CI 3.9-9.2). Exposure to flooding was associated with a higher odds of anxiety (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 5.2 95%, 95% CI 1.7-16.3) and depression (aOR 8.7, 95% CI 1.9-39.8) but not PTSD. Exposure to disruption caused by flooding was not significantly associated with probable psychological morbidity. Persistent damage in the home as a consequence of the original flooding event was reported by 119 participants (14%). The odds of probable psychological morbidity amongst flooded participants who reported persistent damage, compared with those who were unaffected, were significantly higher than the same comparison amongst flooded participants who did not report persistent damage. This study shows a continuance of probable psychological morbidity at least two years following exposure to flooding. Commissioners and providers of health and social care services should be aware that the increased need in populations may be prolonged. Efforts to resolve persistent damage to homes may reduce the risk of probable psychological morbidity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 14%
Student > Master 14 13%
Researcher 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Lecturer 5 5%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 39 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 9%
Psychology 8 7%
Environmental Science 7 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 49 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2019.
All research outputs
#1,564,035
of 24,933,778 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,720
of 16,593 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,139
of 338,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#54
of 311 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,933,778 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,593 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 338,148 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 311 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.