The organization of post-disaster psychosocial support in the Netherlands: a meta-synthesis

Abstract

Background : Despite numerous calls for a more evidence-based provision of post-disaster psychosocial support, systematic analyses of post-disaster service delivery are scarce. Objective : The aim of this review was to evaluate the organization of post-disaster psychosocial support in different disaster settings and to identify determinants. Methods : We conducted a meta-synthesis of scientific literature and evaluations of post-disaster psychosocial support after 12 Dutch disasters and major crises between 1992 and 2014. We applied systematic search and snowballing methods and included 80 evaluations, as well as grey and scientific documents. Results : Many documents focus on the prevalence of mental health problems. Only a few documents primarily assess the organization of post-disaster psychosocial support and its determinants. The material illustrates how, over the course of two decades, the organizational context of post-disaster psychosocial support in the Netherlands has been influenced by changes in legislation, policy frameworks, evidence-based guidelines, and the instalment of formal expertise structures to support national and local governments and public services. Recurring organizational issues in response to events are linked to interrelated evaluation themes such as planning, training, registration, provision of information and social acknowledgement. For each evaluation theme, we identify factors helping or hindering the psychosocial support organization during the preparedness, acute and recovery phases. Conclusions : The meta-synthesis illustrates that psychosocial service delivery has grown from a monodisciplinary to a multidisciplinary field over time. Suboptimal interprofessional collaboration poses a recurring threat to service quality. Despite the development of the knowledge base, post-disaster psychosocial support in the Netherlands lacks a systematic and critical appraisal of its functioning. Further professionalization is coupled with the strengthening of evaluation and learning routines.

Can a ‘second disaster’ during and after the COVID-19 pandemic be mitigated?

“…Extensive research on previous disasters has yielded a usable definition of disaster as the result of exposure to a hazard that threatens personal safety, disrupts community and family structures, and results in personal and societal loss, creating demands that exceed existing resources (Ursano, Fullerton, Weisaeth, & Raphael, 2007 ). It seems that the current pandemic shares certain characteristics with previous disasters (Jacobs et al, 2019 ; McFarlane & Van Hooff, 2014 ; Puente, Marín, Álvarez, Flores, & Grassau, 2019 ; Sundram et al, 2008 ; van der Velden, Bosmans, Bogaerts, & van Veldhoven, 2014 ; Watson, Brymer, & Bonanno, 2011 ). One of the critical challenges is how to use available information and knowledge to inform those who are in charge of the response (Fogli & Guida, 2013 ; Krumkamp et al, 2009 ).…”

A decennial review of psychotraumatology: what did we learn and where are we going?

“…Some have proposed implementing stepped care models which begin with minimal interventions, before introducing more intensive interventions only for individuals with symptoms that does not decline over time (McDermott & Cobham, 2014). There has been an increased focus on trauma as a public health issue (Frewen, Schmahl, & Olff, 2017;Magruder, Kassam-Adams, Thoresen, & Olff, 2016) and post-disaster psychosocial support can now involve many disciplines (Jacobs et al, 2019).…”

Mobile Insight in Risk, Resilience, and Online Referral (MIRROR): Psychometric Evaluation of an Online Self-Help Test

“…Although guidelines on screening for PTSD complaints and postdisaster psychosocial care are widely available [ 7 , 15 , 69 - 71 ], the challenge remains how to reach and identify people at risk of developing psychological complaints after a PTE on a large scale. Future research could focus on investigating the implementation of MIRROR on a larger scale—for example, after terrorist attacks or natural disasters.…”