↓ Skip to main content

An integrated approach to mental health and disaster preparedness: a cluster comparison with earthquake affected communities in Nepal

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, September 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 (81st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
168 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
An integrated approach to mental health and disaster preparedness: a cluster comparison with earthquake affected communities in Nepal
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12888-018-1863-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Courtney Welton-Mitchell, Leah Emily James, Shree Niwas Khanal, Alexander Scott James

Abstract

On 25th April 2015, Nepal experienced a 7.8 magnitude earthquake, followed by countless aftershocks. Nearly 9000 people were killed and over 600,000 homes destroyed. Given the high frequency of earthquake and other natural hazards in Nepal, disaster preparedness is crucial. However, evidence suggests that some people exposed to prior disasters do not engage in risk reduction, even when they receive training and have adequate resources. Mental health symptoms, including those associated with prior disaster exposure, may influence engagement in preparedness. Perceived preparedness for future disasters may in turn influence mental health. Social cohesion may influence both mental health and preparedness. We developed and tested a hybrid mental health and disaster preparedness intervention in two earthquake-affected communities in Nepal (N = 240), about 2.5 months after the April 25th, 2015 earthquake. The 3-day intervention was culturally adapted, facilitated by trained Nepalese clinicians and focused on enhancing disaster preparedness, mental health, and community cohesion. Communities were selected based on earthquake impacts and matched on demographic variables. The intervention was administered initially to one community, followed by the other receiving the intervention shortly thereafter. Survey data was collected across three time points. Focus groups were also conducted to examine intervention impact. At pre-intervention baseline, greater depression symptoms and lower social cohesion were associated with less disaster preparedness. Depression and PTSD were associated with lower social cohesion. Participation in the intervention increased disaster preparedness, decreased depression- and PTSD-related symptoms, and increased social cohesion. Mediation models indicated that the effect of intervention on depression was partially explained by preparedness. The effect of the intervention on disaster preparedness was partially explained by social cohesion, and the effect of intervention on depression and on PTSD was also partially explained by social cohesion. Data from focus groups illuminate participant perspectives on components of the intervention associated with preparedness, mental health and social cohesion. This mental health integrated disaster preparedness intervention is effective in enhancing resilience among earthquake-affected communities in Nepal. This brief, cost-effective group intervention has the potential to be scaled up for use with other communities vulnerable to earthquakes and other natural hazards. Clinical Trials Registry-India, National Institute of Medical Statistics. Registration number: CTRI/2018/02/011688. http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/login.php Retrospectively registered February 5th, 2018. First participant enrolled July 2015.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 168 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 14%
Researcher 19 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 8%
Other 10 6%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 62 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 21 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 10%
Social Sciences 13 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 4%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 69 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 01 October 2018.
All research outputs
#2,864,843
of 23,103,436 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,041
of 4,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,822
of 337,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#33
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,436 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 337,900 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.