Two and a half years post-disaster an excess of psychological problems, MUPS, and gastrointestinal morbidity was observed. Pre-disaster psychological problems and inevitable relocation were predictors of more post-disaster psychological problems.

Post-disaster increases in utilization and psychological morbidity were observed. Post-disaster psychological problems were more influenced by the disaster, while post-disaster physical symptoms were more influenced by pre-disaster psychological problems. GPs should concentrate on the pre-disaster health history of victims of man-made disasters in their practices.

Changes in the pattern of service utilisation and health problems of women, men and various age groups following a destructive disaster: a matched cohort study with a pre-disaster assessment AbstractObjectives: Female gender and young age are known risk factors for psychological morbidity after a disaster, but this conclusion is based on studies without a pre-disaster assessment. The aim of this study in family practice was to investigate if these supposed risk factors would still occur in a study design with a pre-disaster measurement. Methods:A matched cohort study with pre-disaster (one year) and post-disaster (five years) data. Community controls (N = 3164) were matched with affected residents (N = 3164) on gender, age and socioeconomic status. Main outcome measures were utilization rates measured by family practice attendances and psychological, musculoskeletal and digestive health problems as registered by the family practitioner using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC).Results: Affected residents of female and male gender and in five age groups all showed increases in utilization rates in the first post-disaster year and in psychological problems when compared to their pre-disaster baseline levels. The increases showed no statistically significant changes, however, between women and men and between all age groups. Conclusion:Gender and age did not appear to be disaster-related risk factors in this study in family practice with a pre-disaster base line assessment, a comparison group and using existing registries. Family practitioners should not focus specifically on these risk groups.

Background: Disasters often have negative health consequences. Studies of health problems presented in family practice before and after a disaster are rare. The present study analyzed health problems before and after a disaster and predictors of increased morbidity after the disaster as presented in family practice.Methods: A matched cohort study design with measurements 1 year before the disaster and 1 year after the disaster. Victims (N ‫؍‬ 9183) and matched controls (N ‫؍‬ 7066) were surveyed in the electronic medical records of 30 family practices after the explosions of a fireworks depot in The Netherlands. All health problems were registered using the International Classification of Primary Care.Results: Victims showed significantly higher prevalence rates for psychological problems after the disaster than before the disaster (422 vs133 per 1000 person-years; P < .001) and for problems of the musculoskeletal system (450 vs 401 per 1000 person-years; P < .05).Relocation because of the disaster (odds ratio, 10.65; 95% confidence interval, 8.15-13.94) and, to a lesser degree, psychological morbidity before the disaster (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.42-3.76) were the strongest predictors of psychological problems after the disaster.

Background In the literature, immigrant victims appear to be more vulnerable to health effects of a disaster than indigenous victims. Most of these studies were performed without pre-disaster measurement and without using a control group. Aim The objective of the study is to monitor differences between two groups of victims, Turkish immigrants and indigenous Dutch, in utilization and morbidity as presented in general practice after a man-made disaster. Methods A matched cohort study was performed with predisaster (1 year) and post-disaster (4 years) measurements of patients from 30 general practices in Enschede. Turkish victims (N=303) and Dutch victims (N=606), matched on age, gender and socioeconomic status, were included. Main outcome measures were psychological problems and physical symptoms as recorded by the general practitioner, using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC). Results The Turkish victims showed higher utilization than the Dutch victims prior to the disaster. In the 1st postdisaster year, both groups of victims showed an increase in utilization, but the increases did not differ significantly. The Turkish group showed no significantly greater increase than the Dutch group in the five most prevalent clusters of health problems (psychological, respiratory, skin, musculoskeletal, and digestive). Conclusion The Turkish victims in general practice were as vulnerable as the Dutch victims for the effects on their health of this man-made disaster. Differences between Turkish and native Dutch victims of this man-made disaster can largely be explained by the differences that existed already before the disaster.