Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 May 24.
Published in final edited form as: Psychol Med. 2007 Sep 6;38(4):467–480. doi: 10.1017/S0033291707001353

Table 3.

Summary of key studies assessing post-traumatic stress after natural disasters

Prevalence
Study Sample type Sample size (n) T1a % T2 %
1989 Newcastle earthquake, Newcastle, Australia (28 December 1989)
Carr et al. (1995)b Community n=3007 in Newcastle 6 months 18.3% among highly exposed
Carr et al. (1997b)c Community n=845 in Newcastle 6 months 11% (low exposure), 19% (disruption), 23% (threat), 40 % (disruption and threat) 2 years 3% (low exposure), 8% (disruption), 13% (threat), 19% (disruption and threat)
1998–1999 Floods, Hunan Province, China (1998–1999)
Liu et al. (2006)b Community n=33 340 Within 2.5 years 8.6%
1999 Turkey earthquakes, Marmara region, Turkey (17 August 1999 and 12 November 1999)
Basoglu et al. (2004)b Community n=530 near epicenter, 420 from 100km away 14 months 23% (near epicenter), 14%(100km away)
Onder et al. (2006)b Community n=683 near epicenter 36 months 19.2% (36 month prevalence), 11.7% (current)
1999 Mexican floods and mudslides, Mexico (October 1999)
Norris et al. (2004)c Community n=561 from two affected communities 6 months 24%
2003 Wildfire disaster, Australia, 18 January 2003
Parslow et al. (2006)c Community n=2085 3–18 months 5%
2004 Earthquake and tsunami, Asia (26 December 2004)
van Griensven et al. (2006)c Community n=371 displaced and 690 non-displaced from Phang Nga, Krabi, and Phuket provinces of Southern Thailand 2 months 11.9% (displaced in Phang Nga), 6.8% (non-displaced in Phang Nga), 3.0% (non-displaced in Krabi and Phuket) 9 months 7.0% (displaced in Phang Nga), 2.3% (non-displaced in Phang Nga)
a

Timing of assessment(s) after the disaster.

b

Cross-sectional study design.

c

Prospective cohort study design