Community-Based Mental Health Interventions for Post-Weather-Related Disasters: A Systematic Review

Background/Purpose: Weather-related disasters are expected to increase due to climate change and are associated with high risks of psychological distress, including stress, anxiety, and depression. Community-based mental health interventions are critical tools in fostering good mental health. Although a variety of community-based interventions are used to address mental health needs, little is known about their comparative effectiveness in treating mental health problems among survivors of weather-related disasters. This systematic review examined the types, effectiveness, and methodological quality of community-based mental health interventions implemented for weather-related disasters.

Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The databases used for the search are PsycINFO, Medline, and Google Scholar. The initial search resulted in over 14,000 results. After reviewing the titles, 214 articles were screened. Of these, 183 articles were excluded during the initial screening. Full-text access was obtained for 29 articles, which were then assessed for compliance with the inclusion criteria. A total of 13 studies assessing the effectiveness of mental health interventions designed to support communities prone to weather-related disasters were used for this review. The methodological quality rating scale (MQRS) was used for the purpose of assessing the studies. The methodological criteria assessed included 11 components: study design, theoretical basis, treatment integrity, measures, length of follow-up, intervention dosage, attrition rate, blinded follow-ups, data analysis, use of multiple sites, and overall generalizability. For each study, criterion scores were summed to produce an overall MQRS score (0–12).

Findings: Each intervention was grouped into one of two program modality categories: institutionally delivered interventions, n=6, and non-institutionally delivered interventions, n=7. The mean score for institutionally delivered interventions was MQRS = 9.33, whereas the mean score for non-institutionally delivered interventions was MQRS = 9.29. Institutionally delivered interventions (n=6) showed stronger methodological rigor and more statistically significant outcomes compared to non-institutionally delivered interventions (n=7). All institutionally delivered interventions demonstrated strong methodological rigor and statistically significant findings. The non-institutionally delivered interventions assessed seven stress outcomes, four depression outcomes, and three anxiety outcomes. Five of the seven stress outcomes were statistically significant with strong methodological rigor, while two were not significant. Of the four studies that measured depression, two were statistically significant with strong methodological rigor, whereas the remaining two were not significant. All three of the non-institutionally delivered interventions that measured anxiety demonstrated statistically significant findings with strong methodological rigor.

Conclusions/Implications: This review showed that although interventions may seek to target communities, their modality of recruitment can either be open or limited. The use of limited modalities can be useful in implementing more targeted interventions for kids, religious groups, and clinical settings, among others. As weather-based disasters are expected to rise due to factors such as climate change and global warming, research is crucial in guiding policymakers, stakeholders, and practitioners in providing adequate support for victims. Understanding the various types of interventions and the modalities of delivery is important in delivering disaster responses tailored to meet community mental health needs.