Votre recherche

Introduction Studies have shown that, following psychotherapy for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), symptoms and quality of life (QoL) may improve in many patients, but not always to the same extent. Dysfunctional core beliefs, such as personality beliefs (PB), are associated to psychopathology, including PTSD, and could be associated with the types of coping strategies deployed by an individual. Beliefs and coping strategies were also linked to psychotherapeutic outcomes. Objectives (1) To examine the associations between baseline PB as well as pre- and post-treatment coping strategies; (2) To investigate the mediation effects between PB and the changes in QoL, through changes in coping strategies in a cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy (CBT). Method Seventy-one adults with PTSD participating in a correlational/observational CBT study were assessed for PB before a CBT, as well as for coping strategies and QoL, before and after a CBT. Results PB were generally associated with post-treatment distancing coping. Moreover, changes in distancing coping mediated the relationships between avoidant or dependent PB and psychological QoL improvements. Conclusion This is the first study to show the relationships between PB and coping strategies in PTSD patients, and that higher avoidant or dependent PB predicts a lower reduction in the use of distancing coping through psychotherapy, which is associated with less improvement in psychological QoL. Future studies are needed to further define the role of these variables and target more precisely factors that may hamper the treatment effects of CBT for PTSD.

Flood risk management requires to comprehensively assess how policy strategies may affect individuals and communities. However, policy development and implementation often downplay or even increase social inequality. Analysis of the social and societal implications of strategies and implementation projects to manage flood hazards is still in its infancy. To close this gap, this chapter critically questions the roles of social justice and their political implications for flood risk management with regard to resilience. The chapter discusses and argues how different theoretical concepts as well as different perspectives on justice (e.g. social, environmental and climate justice) and resilience in flood risk management are related. There is a strong need to have a broader and more in-depth discussion about the role of justice in the current resilience debate. Finally, the chapter presents the outline of a future research agenda.

Support from caregivers is an important element of mental health recovery. However, the mechanisms by which social support influences the recovery of persons with depressive, anxiety, or bipolar disorders are less understood. In this study, we describe the social support mechanisms that influence mental health recovery. A cross-sectional qualitative study was undertaken in Québec (Canada) with 15 persons in recovery and 15 caregivers—those having played the most significant role in their recovery. A deductive thematic analysis allowed for the identification and description of different mechanisms through a triangulation of perspectives from different actors. Regarding classic social support functions, several of the support mechanisms for mental health recovery were identified (emotional support, companionship, instrumental support, and validation). However, informational support was not mentioned. New mechanisms were also identified: presence, communication, and influence. Social support mechanisms evoke a model containing a hierarchy as well as links among them.

Abstract There has been an upsurge in studies of flood risk governance (FRG): steering and decision‐making by public and private actors as a complement to risk assessments and technical management options. The scholarly debate is, however, highly fragmented, complicating the production of cumulative insights. To address this knowledge gap, we used six governance strategies for achieving flood resilience that previously have been put forward as a conceptual framework to review 121 articles published between 2016 and 2019, complemented with insights contained in recent overview articles, to gauge the state‐of‐the‐art in FRG literature: to (a) diversify flood risk management strategies; (b) align the strategies; (c) adequately involve private actors, including citizens; (d) put an adequate rule system in place; (e) cater for sufficient monetary and non‐monetary resources; (f) inspire an open and inclusive normative debate. We found, first, that literature is producing insights on increasingly technically advanced risk assessments and agent‐based models but societal debate on justice in flood risk governance is getting attention. A clearly emerging topic is that of citizen engagement in flood risk governance. Second, the geographical focus of the studies is still skewed toward the Global North. To make progress in understanding flood risk governance for better resilience more systematic and comparative empirical assessments of flood risk governance in order to derive generalizable lessons while better taking into account the context‐specificity of FRG. Testing flood risk governance solutions against comparative cases, by balancing the geographical scope of research efforts, and enhancing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary working is a way to deliver knowledge for more resilience. This article is categorized under: Human Water > Water Governance Engineering Water > Planning Water

This paper finds that social differentiation in flood impacts is relatively small soon after a flood, with some surprising results such as professionals and homeowners badly affected in the short‐term – but widens over time, with socially disadvantaged groups displaying less recovery. The paper concludes that vulnerability and resilience to flooding are sensitive to financial resources, institutional support (chiefly from a landlord), and capacity to deal with disruption (chiefly time availability, which is low among professionals and high among retired people). An implication of these findings is that existing indices of flood vulnerability that use multiple measures of social deprivation should be used with caution, as not all conventional aspects of social deprivation are necessarily associated with greater vulnerability to flood impacts. , This paper reports household questionnaire survey results on vulnerability and resilience to flooding from one of the largest and most representative samples ( n  = 593) of households up to 12 years after they were flooded, and is one of the first to provide detailed analysis of social differentiation in long‐term flood impacts. A novel finding is that social differentiation in flood impacts is relatively small soon after a flood, but widens over time, with socially disadvantaged groups displaying less recovery. The patterns of social differentiation in vulnerability and resilience to flooding differ markedly according to the type and timescale of the impact, with some normally socially advantaged groups (e.g., professionals and homeowners) being most vulnerable to short‐term impacts. Consistent with some existing studies, we found that older residents (age 70+) have greater resilience to flood impacts, although our sample may not capture the frailest individuals. As in previous research, low income is linked to lower resilience, particularly in the long term. We find that prior experience of flooding, despite enhancing preparedness, overall erodes rather than enhances resilience to flooding. Flood warnings are effective at reducing vulnerability to short‐term impacts. Underlying influences on resilience to natural disasters are complex and may only be revealed by multivariate analysis and not always be evident in simple observed patterns. The paper concludes that vulnerability and resilience to flooding are sensitive to financial resources, institutional support (chiefly from a landlord), and capacity to deal with disruption (chiefly time availability, which is low among professionals and high among retired people). An implication of these findings is that existing indices of flood vulnerability that use multiple measures of social deprivation should be used with caution, as not all conventional aspects of social deprivation are necessarily associated with greater vulnerability to flood impacts.