Post-flood social support networks and morbidity in Jôsô City, Japan

How Does Reciprocal Exchange of Social Support Alleviate Individuals' Depression in an Earthquake-Damaged Community?

There is ample evidence to indicate the direct effects of receiving social support on mental health during and after a disaster. However, the importance of reciprocal exchanges of social support (i.e., balanced receipt and provision of social support) in maintaining the mental health status of individuals is not widely recognized. Using equity theory and reciprocity norms as a conceptual base, we distinguished two types of social support, namely, emotional support and instrumental support, and examined the effects of reciprocal exchanges of types of support on depression in survivors of an earthquake-damaged community. To collect data, in 2019, a questionnaire survey was conducted among 295 survivors of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake in a rural village in Nepal. Our results showed that the relationship between reciprocal exchange of support and depression varied depending on the types of support. The amount of emotional support received by the individual alleviated his/her depression only when accompanied by giving emotional support. By contrast, the net amount of instrumental support given by the individual increased his/her depression. The practical implications of the study are discussed.

Measuring mental health burden in humanitarian settings: a critical review of assessment tools

BACKGROUND

The effects of disasters and conflicts are widespread and heavily studied. While attention to disasters' impacts on mental health is growing, mental health effects are not well understood due to inconsistencies in measurement.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to review mental health assessment tools and their use in populations affected by disasters and conflicts.

METHOD

Tools that assess posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, substance use disorder, and general mental health were examined. This review began with a search for assessment tools in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Next, validation studies for the tools were obtained through snowball sampling. A final search was conducted for scientific studies using the selected tools in humanitarian settings to collect the data for analysis. The benefits and limitations described for each tool were compiled into a complete table.

RESULTS

Twelve assessment tools were included, with 88 studies using them. The primary findings indicate that half of the studies used the Impact of Events Scale-Revised. The most common limitation discussed is that self-report tools inaccurately estimate the prevalence of mental health problems. This inaccuracy is further exacerbated by a lack of cultural appropriateness of the tools, as many are developed for Western contexts.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that researchers and humanitarian workers reflect on the effectiveness of the mental health assessment tool they use to accurately represent the populations under study in emergency settings. In addition, mental health assessment should be coupled with action.