Self-care strategies and system supports employed in preparation for, during, and after disaster relief operations (DROs) are crucial to relief worker well-being and the overall effectiveness of relief efforts. Relief organizations and management must structure DROs in a manner that promotes self-care and workers must implement proper self-care strategies. Proper self-care before, during, and after a DRO can reduce negative reactions to stressful emergency work and promote growth, mastery, and self-efficacy after the experience. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to discuss the importance of organizational supports and self-care strategies in disaster relief settings. This article emphasizes the role of both individual and management participation and commitment to relief worker support and positive experience in DROs and provides suggestions for doing so. These suggestions are derived from the empirical and experiential literature and extensions from the theoretical background, and from our experience as managers in DROs.

The field of disaster and emergency management has shifted in focus towards the goal of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR). However, the degree to which the Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) field has followed this trend is relatively unknown. Therefore, the objectives of this review were to identify relevant projects, materials, and publications relating to MHPSS and DRR integration and define current domains of action in this integration. A review was conducted using a two-pronged approach for data collection. This approach included 1) a mapping exercise eliciting relevant documentation and project descriptions from MHPSS actors, and 2) a database and internet literature search. The mapping exercise was conducted between January and November 2019, while the literature search was completed in March 2019. The majority of identified materials concerned actions of capacity and systems building; preparedness; policy development, consensus building, and awareness raising; school- and child-focused DRR; inclusive DRR; and resilience promotion. Results also suggested that relatively little consensus exists in terms of formal definitions of and frameworks or guidance for integrating MHPSS and DRR. Moreover, domains of action varied in terms of current implementation practices and empirical evidence. Materials and projects are reviewed and discussed in terms of implications for advancing the integration of DRR and MHPSS and expanding MHPSS approaches to include building better before emergencies.

Any community can experience a disaster, and many traumatic events occur without warning. Psychologists can be an important resource assisting in psychological support for individuals and communities, in preparation for and in response to traumatic events. Disaster mental health and the community-based model of psychological first aid are described. The National Preparedness and Response Science Board has recommended that all mental health professionals be trained in disaster mental health, and that first responders, civic officials, emergency managers, and the general public be trained in community-based psychological first aid. Education and training resources in these two fields are described to assist psychologists and others in preparing themselves to assist their communities in difficult times and to help their communities learn to support one another.

Background There remains uncertainty about the impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on mental health. This umbrella review provides a comprehensive overview of the association between the pandemic and common mental disorders. We qualitatively summarized evidence from reviews with meta-analyses of individual study-data in the general population, healthcare workers, and specific at-risk populations. Methods and findings A systematic search was carried out in 5 databases for peer-reviewed systematic reviews with meta-analyses of prevalence of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms during the pandemic published between December 31, 2019 until August 12, 2022. We identified 123 reviews of which 7 provided standardized mean differences (SMDs) either from longitudinal pre- to during pandemic study-data or from cross-sectional study-data compared to matched pre-pandemic data. Methodological quality rated with the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklist scores (AMSTAR 2) instrument was generally low to moderate. Small but significant increases of depression, anxiety, and/or general mental health symptoms were reported in the general population, in people with preexisting physical health conditions, and in children (3 reviews; SMDs ranged from 0.11 to 0.28). Mental health and depression symptoms significantly increased during periods of social restrictions (1 review; SMDs of 0.41 and 0.83, respectively) but anxiety symptoms did not (SMD: 0.26). Increases of depression symptoms were generally larger and longer-lasting during the pandemic (3 reviews; SMDs depression ranged from 0.16 to 0.23) than those of anxiety (2 reviews: SMDs 0.12 and 0.18). Females showed a significantly larger increase in anxiety symptoms than males (1 review: SMD 0.15). In healthcare workers, people with preexisting mental disorders, any patient group, children and adolescents, and in students, no significant differences from pre- to during pandemic were found (2 reviews; SMD’s ranging from −0.16 to 0.48). In 116 reviews pooled cross-sectional prevalence rates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptoms ranged from 9% to 48% across populations. Although heterogeneity between studies was high and largely unexplained, assessment tools and cut-offs used, age, sex or gender, and COVID-19 exposure factors were found to be moderators in some reviews. The major limitations are the inability to quantify and explain the high heterogeneity across reviews included and the shortage of within-person data from multiple longitudinal studies. Conclusions A small but consistent deterioration of mental health and particularly depression during early pandemic and during social restrictions has been found in the general population and in people with chronic somatic disorders. Also, associations between mental health and the pandemic were stronger in females and younger age groups than in others. Explanatory individual-level, COVID-19 exposure, and time-course factors were scarce and showed inconsistencies across reviews. For policy and research, repeated assessments of mental health in population panels including vulnerable individuals are recommended to respond to current and future health crises.

No abstract