| Title |
The English national cohort study of flooding and health: cross-sectional analysis of mental health outcomes at year one
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Public Health, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-016-4000-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas David Waite, Katerina Chaintarli, Charles R. Beck, Angie Bone, Richard Amlôt, Sari Kovats, Mark Reacher, Ben Armstrong, Giovanni Leonardi, G. James Rubin, Isabel Oliver |
| Abstract |
In winter 2013/14 there was widespread flooding in England. Previous studies have described an increased prevalence of psychological morbidity six months after flooding. Disruption to essential services may increase morbidity however there have been no studies examining whether those experiencing disruption but not directly flooded are affected. The National Study of Flooding and Health was established in order to investigate the longer-term impact of flooding and related disruptions on mental health and wellbeing. In year one we conducted a cross sectional analysis of people living in neighbourhoods affected by flooding between 1 December 2013 and 31 March 2014. 8761 households were invited to participate. Participants were categorised according to exposure as flooded, disrupted by flooding or unaffected. We used validated instruments to screen for probable psychological morbidity, the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ 2), Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-2) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) checklist (PCL-6). We calculated prevalence and odds ratios for each outcome by exposure group relative to unaffected participants, adjusting for confounders. 2126 people (23%) responded. The prevalence of psychological morbidity was elevated amongst flooded participants ([n = 622] depression 20.1%, anxiety 28.3%, PTSD 36.2%) and disrupted participants ([n = 1099] depression 9.6%, anxiety 10.7% PTSD 15.2%). Flooding was associated with higher odds of all outcomes (adjusted odds ratios (aORs), 95% CIs for depression 5.91 (3.91-10.99), anxiety 6.50 (3.77-11.24), PTSD 7.19 (4.33-11.93)). Flooded participants who reported domestic utilities disruption had higher odds of all outcomes than other flooded participants, (aORs, depression 6.19 (3.30-11.59), anxiety 6.64 (3.84-11.48), PTSD 7.27 (4.39-12.03) aORs without such disruption, depression, 3.14 (1.17-8.39), anxiety 3.45 (1.45-8.22), PTSD 2.90 (1.25-6.73)). Increased floodwater depth was significantly associated with higher odds of each outcome. Disruption without flooding was associated with borderline higher odds of anxiety (aOR 1.61 (0.94-2.77)) and higher odds of PTSD 2.06 (1.27-3.35)) compared with unaffected participants. Disruption to health/social care and work/education was also associated with higher odds of psychological morbidity. This study provides an insight into the impact of flooding on mental health, suggesting that the impacts of flooding are large, prolonged and extend beyond just those whose homes are flooded. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 101 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 64 | 63% |
| Australia | 4 | 4% |
| France | 3 | 3% |
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Nigeria | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 26 | 26% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 81 | 80% |
| Scientists | 12 | 12% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 206 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 205 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 30 | 15% |
| Researcher | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 23 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 23 | 11% |
| Unknown | 66 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 10% |
| Environmental Science | 17 | 8% |
| Psychology | 16 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 12 | 6% |
| Other | 54 | 26% |
| Unknown | 73 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 192. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 October 2022.
All research outputs
#212,369
of 25,882,826 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#197
of 17,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,574
of 426,488 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#4
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,882,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 426,488 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.