Secondary stressors and extreme events and disasters: a systematic review of primary research from 2010-2011
Citation: Lock S., Rubin G. J., Murray V., et al. Secondary stressors and extreme events and disasters: A systematic review of primary research from 2010-2011. PLoS Currents. 2012, Oct 29; 4.
This is the first review to develop a typology of secondary stressors following extreme events. Some secondary stressors are entities in themselves, whereas others are primary stressors whose immediate effects have not been mitigated. Future research should focus on defining secondary stressors clearly so we can identify which secondary stressors are most amenable to interventions to reduce their negative impacts.
This systematic review aimed to elucidate the impact of secondary stressors following an extreme event on distress or mental disorders. 32 articles were identified that yielded 11 categories of secondary stressors including: economic stressors such as problems with compensation, recovery of and rebuilding homes; loss of physical possessions and resources; health related stressors; stress relating to education and schooling; stress arising from media reporting; family and social stressors; stress arising from loss of leisure and recreation; and stress related to changes in people’s views of the world or themselves. Included studies were published in 2010-2011 which potentially may have led to certain types of secondary stressors to be excluded. Clear definitions and differentiation of secondary stressors continue to be needed.
Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence for Windstorms but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made about Windstorms on the basis of this summary alone.
If you have found this summary helpful, please consider making a donation. If everyone who looked at our COVID-19 resources gave us just £2 per month, it would fund Evidence Aid’s life-saving work.