Mortality following the Haitian earthquake of 2010: a stratified cluster survey

Abstract

IntroductionResearch that seeks to better understand vulnerability to earthquakes and risk factors associated with mortality in low resource settings is critical to earthquake preparedness and response efforts. This study aims to characterize mortality and associated risk factors in the 2010 Haitian earthquake.MethodsIn January 2011, a survey of the earthquake affected Haitian population was conducted in metropolitan Port-au-Prince. A stratified 60x20 cluster design (n = 1200 households) was used with 30 clusters sampled in both camp and neighborhood locations. Households were surveyed regarding earthquake impact, current living conditions, and unmet needs.ResultsMortality was estimated at 24 deaths (confidence interval [CI]: 20–28) per 1,000 in the sample population. Using two approaches, extrapolation of the survey mortality rate to the exposed population yielded mortality estimates ranging from a low of 49,033 to a high of 86,555. No significant difference in mortality was observed by sex (p = .786); however, age was significant with adults age 50+ years facing increased mortality risk. Odds of death were not significantly higher in camps, with 27 deaths per 1,000 (CI: 22–34), compared to neighborhoods, where the death rate was 19 per 1,000 (CI: 15–25; p = 0.080). Crowding and residence in a multistory building were also associated with increased risk of death.ConclusionsHaiti earthquake mortality estimates are widely varied, though epidemiologic surveys conducted to date suggest lower levels of mortality than officially reported figures. Strategies to mitigate future mortality burden in future earthquakes should consider improvements to the built environment that are feasible in urban resource-poor settings.

Building the Capacity to Manage Orthopaedic Trauma After a Catastrophe in a Low-Income Country

“…It is estimated that 3.5 million people were initially affected by the earthquake, more than 200,000 people were killed, and approximately 300,000 injured. 6,7 The stage was set in a country with limited capacity for response and a major natural disaster which placed high demands on regional and global responses. Haiti represents an appropriate contextual setting to discuss the stages of disaster response and the framework of capacity building.…”

Assessing Healthcare Facilities Preparedness for Mass Fatalities Incident

“…Approximately 1.5 million people were left homeless, and more than 3 million persons were affected. The earthquake left a devastated city, a collapsed hospital, and a recovery process with a cost of more than $4 billion [16,17].…”

Integrating epidemiological and engineering approaches in the assessment of human casualties in earthquakes

“…Among the seven studies that found the elderly to be at higher risk for injury and death, Chou et al from Taiwan (2004) had the highest odds ratio for increased risk of death of 5.5 (95 % CI 4.4, 6.8). Three studies from the USA and Haiti (Mahue-Giangreco et al 2001;Peek-Asa et al 2003;Doocy et al 2013) found lower odds ratios of increased risk of injury OR 2.69 (95 % CI 1.34, 5.4), OR 2.9 (95 % CI 1.2, 7.4) and increased risk of death OR 2.8 (95 % CI 1.66, 4.72), respectively. Two other studies from Taiwan and China (Liang et al 2001;Dong et al 2012) also found age to be significantly associated with higher mortality and reported coefficient value of 0.101 (95 % CI 0.076, 0.125) and B coefficient of 1.539 (95 % CI N/A).…”

“…Studies from the USA, Taiwan, Turkey and Haiti found no differences in the risk of injury and death by gender (Mahue-Giangreco et al 2001;Liang et al 2001;Ellidokuz et al 2005;Doocy et al 2013). Among the four studies that found women at higher risk of injury and death, two from the USA (Shoaf et al 1998;Peek-Asa et al 2003) had the highest odds ratios (OR) for increased risk of injury of 1.64 (95 % CI N/A) and 2.4 (95 % CI 1.2, 5.1), respectively.…”

“…These criteria used to screen all abstracts included. Thirteen studies met these criteria and were included in this section (Shoaf et al 1998;Mahue-Giangreco et al 2001;(Liang et al 2001;Peek-Asa et al 2003;Chou et al 2004;Doocy et al 2009Doocy et al , 2013Ellidokuz et al 2005;Dong et al 2012;Kolbe et al 2010;Osaki and Minowa 2001;Roces et al 1992;Armenian et al 1992). The steps of the literature review are described in Fig.…”