Votre recherche

Purpose The current pandemic and ongoing climate risks highlight the limited capacity of various systems, including health and social ones, to respond to population-scale and long-term threats. Practices to reduce the impacts on the health and well-being of populations must evolve from a reactive mode to preventive, proactive and concerted actions beginning at individual and community levels. Experiences and lessons learned from the pandemic will help to better prevent and reduce the psychosocial impacts of floods, or other hydroclimatic risks, in a climate change context. Design/methodology/approach The present paper first describes the complexity and the challenges associated with climate change and systemic risks. It also presents some systemic frameworks of mental health determinants, and provides an overview of the different types of psychosocial impacts of disasters. Through various Quebec case studies and using lessons learned from past and recent flood-related events, recommendations are made on how to better integrate individual and community factors in disaster response. Findings Results highlight the fact that people who have been affected by the events are significantly more likely to have mental health problems than those not exposed to flooding. They further demonstrate the adverse and long-term effects of floods on psychological health, notably stemming from indirect stressors at the community and institutional levels. Different strategies are proposed from individual-centered to systemic approaches, in putting forward the advantages from intersectoral and multirisk researches and interventions. Originality/value The establishment of an intersectoral flood network, namely the InterSectoral Flood Network of Québec (RIISQ), is presented as an interesting avenue to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and a systemic view of flood risks. Intersectoral work is proving to be a major issue in the management of systemic risks, and should concern communities, health and mental health professionals, and the various levels of governance. As climate change is called upon to lead to more and more systemic risks, close collaboration between all the areas concerned with the management of the factors of vulnerability and exposure of populations will be necessary to respond effectively to damages and impacts (direct and indirect) linked to new meteorological and compound hazards. This means as well to better integrate the communication managers into the risk management team.

Purpose The current pandemic and ongoing climate risks highlight the limited capacity of various systems, including health and social ones, to respond to population-scale and long-term threats. Practices to reduce the impacts on the health and well-being of populations must evolve from a reactive mode to preventive, proactive and concerted actions beginning at individual and community levels. Experiences and lessons learned from the pandemic will help to better prevent and reduce the psychosocial impacts of floods, or other hydroclimatic risks, in a climate change context. Design/methodology/approach The present paper first describes the complexity and the challenges associated with climate change and systemic risks. It also presents some systemic frameworks of mental health determinants, and provides an overview of the different types of psychosocial impacts of disasters. Through various Quebec case studies and using lessons learned from past and recent flood-related events, recommendations are made on how to better integrate individual and community factors in disaster response. Findings Results highlight the fact that people who have been affected by the events are significantly more likely to have mental health problems than those not exposed to flooding. They further demonstrate the adverse and long-term effects of floods on psychological health, notably stemming from indirect stressors at the community and institutional levels. Different strategies are proposed from individual-centered to systemic approaches, in putting forward the advantages from intersectoral and multirisk researches and interventions. Originality/value The establishment of an intersectoral flood network, namely the InterSectoral Flood Network of Québec (RIISQ), is presented as an interesting avenue to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and a systemic view of flood risks. Intersectoral work is proving to be a major issue in the management of systemic risks, and should concern communities, health and mental health professionals, and the various levels of governance. As climate change is called upon to lead to more and more systemic risks, close collaboration between all the areas concerned with the management of the factors of vulnerability and exposure of populations will be necessary to respond effectively to damages and impacts (direct and indirect) linked to new meteorological and compound hazards. This means as well to better integrate the communication managers into the risk management team.

Introduction:In July 2013, a train carrying 72 cars of crude oil derailed in the town of Lac-Mégantic (Eastern Townships, Quebec, Canada). This disaster provoked a major conflagration, explosions, 47 deaths, the destruction of 44 buildings, the evacuation of one-third of the local population, and an unparalleled oil spill. Notwithstanding the environmental impact, many citizens of this town and in surrounding areas have suffered and continue to suffer substantial losses as a direct consequence of this catastrophe.Problem:To tailor public health interventions and to meet the psychosocial needs of the community, the Public Health Department of Eastern Townships has undertaken repeated surveys to monitor health and well-being over time. This study focuses on negative psychosocial outcomes one and two years after the tragedy.Methods:Two cross-sectional surveys (2014 and 2015) were conducted among large random samples of adults in Lac-Mégantic and surrounding areas (2014: n = 811; 2015: n = 800), and elsewhere in the region (2014: n = 7,926; 2015: n = 800). A wide range of psychosocial outcomes was assessed (ie, daily stress, main source of stress, sense of insecurity, psychological distress, excessive drinking, anxiety or mood disorders, psychosocial services use, anxiolytic drug use, gambling habits, and posttraumatic stress symptoms [PSS]). Exposure to the tragedy was assessed using residential location (ie, six-digit postal code) and intensity of exposure (ie, intense, moderate, or low exposure; from nine items capturing human, material, or subjective losses). Relationships between such exposures and adverse psychosocial outcomes were examined using chi-squares and t-tests. Distribution of outcomes was also examined over time.Results:One year after the disaster, an important proportion of participants reported human, material, and subjective losses (64%, 23%, and 54%, respectively), whereas 17% of people experienced intense exposure. Participants from Lac-Mégantic, particularly those intensely exposed, were much more likely to report psychological distress, depressive episode, anxiety disorders, and anxiolytic drug use, relative to less-exposed ones. In 2015, 67% of the Lac-Mégantic participants (76% of intensely exposed) reported moderate to severe PSS. Surprisingly, the use of psychosocial services in Lac-Mégantic declined by 41% from 2014 to 2015.Conclusion:The psychosocial burden in the aftermath of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy is substantial and persistent. Public health organizations responding to large-scaling disasters should monitor long-term psychosocial consequences and advocate for community-based psychosocial support in order to help citizens in their recovery process.

Canada regularly faces environmental public health (EPH) disasters. Given the importance of evidence-based, risk-informed decision-making, we aimed to critically assess the integration of EPH expertise and research into each phase of disaster management. In-depth interviews were conducted with 23 leaders in disaster management from Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, and were complemented by other qualitative methods. Three topics were examined: governance, knowledge creation/translation, and related barriers/needs. Data were analyzed through a four-step content analysis. Six critical success factors emerged from the analysis: blending the best of traditional and modern approaches; fostering community engagement; cultivating relationships; investing in preparedness and recovery; putting knowledge into practice; and ensuring sufficient human and financial resources. Several promising knowledge-to-action strategies were also identified, including mentorship programs, communities of practice, advisory groups, systematized learning, and comprehensive repositories of tools and resources. There is no single roadmap to incorporate EPH expertise and research into disaster management. Our findings suggest that preparation for and management of EPH disaster risks requires effective long-term collaboration between science, policy, and EPH practitioners at all levels in order to facilitate coordinated and timely deployment of multi-sectoral/jurisdictional resources when and where they are most needed.

Emergencies and disasters typically affect entire communities, cause substantial losses and disruption, and result in a significant and persistent mental health burden. There is currently a paucity of evidence on safe and effective individual- and community-level strategies for improving mental health before, during, and after such events. In October 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) Centre for Health Development (WHO Kobe Centre) convened a meeting bringing together leading Asia Pacific and international disaster research experts. The expert meeting identified key research needs in five major areas, one being “Psychosocial management before, during, and after emergencies and disasters”. Experts for this research area identified critical gaps in observational research (i.e., the monitoring of long-term psychological consequences) and interventional research (i.e., the development and evaluation of individual- and community-level interventions). Three key research issues were identified. First, experts underscored the need for a standardized and psychometrically robust instrument that classified the mental health/psychosocial risk of people within both a clinical and community setting. Then, the need for a standardization of methods for prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment for affected people was highlighted. Finally, experts called for a better identification of before, during, and after emergency or disaster assets associated with greater community resilience.