Skip to main content
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2016 Feb 20;40(3):623–630. doi: 10.1111/acer.12984

Drinking Behavior and Mental Illness Among Evacuees in Fukushima Following the Great East Japan Earthquake: The Fukushima Health Management Survey

Yuka Ueda 1,, Hirooki Yabe 1,2, Masaharu Maeda 1,3, Tetsuya Ohira 1,4, Senta Fujii 1,3, Shin‐ichi Niwa 5, Akira Ohtsuru 6, Hirobumi Mashiko 2,7, Mayumi Harigane 1, Seiji Yasumura 1,8; the Fukushima Health Management Survey Group, Masafumi Abe, Shunichi Yamashita, Kenji Kamiya, Makoto Akashi, Kazunori Kodama, Kotaro Ozasa, Kenneth E Nollet, Ohtsura Niwa, Shiro Matsui, Yasuto Kunii, Shuntaro Itagaki, Tetsuya Shiga, Hajime Iwasa, Yuriko Suzuki, Yoko Nakayama, Misao Ohta, Aya Goto, Mitsuru Hisata, Norito Kawakami, Mitsuaki Hosoya, Akiko Yagi, Yu‐ichi Oiwaka, Naoko Horikoshi, Yu‐ya Kashiwazaki, Go Takeda, Tetsunobu Hata, Hiroyuki Suguimoto, Yukiko Ito, Yuko Hino, Keisuke Hiyamizu, Kuni Kanke, Suzuko Yasuhara, Shizu Igarashi, Ai Kawamura, Aiko Matsuda, Mariko Hara, Yuriko Kimura, Yuki Kumasaka, Natusumi Sasaki, Miho Onji, Ryuchi Kurosawa, Fumiko Mori
PMCID: PMC5067661  PMID: 26895603

Abstract

Background

Recent evidence from alcohol and trauma studies suggests that disasters are associated with increases in the consumption of alcohol. The Great East Japan Earthquake and the associated nuclear disaster have continued to affect the mental health of evacuees from Fukushima. This study aimed to extend these findings by examining the relationship between drinking behaviors and the risk of mental illness after the compound disaster.

Methods

We conducted the Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey with 56,543 evacuees. Kessler's K6 was used to assess the risk of mental illness, and logistic regression models were applied to analyze how drinking behavior patterns influence the risk of serious mental illness after adjustment for confounding variables.

Results

Logistic regression analysis evidenced that beginning heavy and light drinkers had the highest and a higher risk of serious mental illness, respectively. Individuals who were nondrinkers pre‐ and postdisaster had the lowest proportional risk of mental illness. Abstainers also had some risk to their mental health after the compound disaster.

Conclusions

The results of this study highlight that beginning drinkers have a high risk of serious mental illness. Thus, mental health professionals should pay attention to the drinking behaviors of evacuees, which might predict increased risk of serious mental illness and consequently indicate a need for psychological intervention.

Keywords: Alcohol, Mental Illness, Evacuees, Great East Japan Earthquake, Nuclear Reactor Accident


It is well established that disasters are associated with the use and abuse of alcohol (Keyes et al., 2011; Nordløkken et al., 2013; Stewart, 1996), increased prevalence of mental illness (Galea et al., 2007; Hussain et al., 2011), and a high prevalence of suicidal ideation (Caldera et al., 2001). Studies conducted after Hurricane Katrina have shown an association between evacuees' exposure to traumatic events and increased alcohol consumption (Cerda et al., 2011; Flory et al., 2009). In general, experience of stressful life events leads to the consumption of larger quantities of alcohol when individuals drink (Blomeyer et al., 2011). However, few studies have examined directly the association between postdisaster alcohol consumption and the risk of serious mental illness among evacuees after a compound disaster. The available studies suggest that traumatic events can be associated with increases or decreases in alcohol consumption (McFarlane, 1998). However, other cohort studies have suggested that exposure to disasters does not increase alcohol consumption (Fergusson et al., 2014; Keyes et al., 2011). Thus, it remains unclear as to how pre‐ to postdisaster changes in alcohol consumption impact mental illness, and conversely, how mental illness affects alcohol consumption, postdisaster.

The Great East Japan Earthquake on March 11, 2011, was one of the most severe disasters in Japanese history and caused the subsequent radiation leak at the Tokyo Electric Power Company Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station. This compound disaster resulted in loss of property, death, relocation, and subsequent adjustment to new circumstances, all of which created very stressful situations for the evacuees. Previously, the Fukushima Health Management Survey used the Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey (Yasumura et al., 2012) to show that 14.6% of adult evacuees had K6 scores equal to or greater than the standard cutoff of 13 (Yabe et al., 2014). Long‐term evacuation could be significantly associated with the risk of serious mental illness among evacuees (Wagner et al., 2009). In this study, we examined drinking behavior and the risk of serious mental illness following the Great East Japan Earthquake disaster and subsequent meltdown at the Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Based on prior research, we hypothesized that some evacuees would change their drinking patterns following the compound disaster, and that newly started drinkers would be at risk of serious mental illness. In addition, we hypothesized that postdisaster abstainers would also have some risk of serious mental illness due to the loss of their community as a consequence of the disaster.

Materials and Methods

Study Design

This cross‐sectional study used data from the 2012 Mental Health and Lifestyle Survey, which assesses the mental state of evacuees of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. The complete protocol of this survey is published elsewhere (Yasumura et al., 2012). The target participants of this study lived in evacuation zones specified by the government: Hirono Town, Naraha Town, Tomioka Town, Kawauchi Village, Okuma Town, Futaba Town, Namie Town, Katsurao Village, Minaisoma City, Tamura City, Yamakiya district of Kawamata Town, and Iitate Village. Questionnaires have been continually mailed to those residents since January 18, 2012 (Yasumura et al., 2012). The study was approved by the ethics review committee of Fukushima Medical University (No. 13020).

Participants

Residents of all evacuation zones were targeted for this study. The total target population was 174,028 individuals (84,684 men and 89,344 women), all of whom were older than 20 years of age. This was broken down by age group into 68,610 (39.4%) 20 to 49 year olds, 49,508 (28.4%) 50 to 64 year olds, and 55,910 (32.1%) individuals aged 65 years and older. Compared to the target population, the distribution of genders in the analysis population was similar, but differences were present in the age distribution. The number of individuals from 50 to 64 years old (33.7%) was the lower in the analysis sample, whereas the number of individuals 65 years old and older was the lower in the target population (29.2%).

We used the data from survey respondents who were older than 20 years of age (n = 71,100), and results were based on those who responded to the polls (n = 62,156). This study excluded respondents diagnosed with chronic hepatitis (n = 1,405), and those who failed to answer any questions for the K6 (n = 4,208). The data for the remaining 56,543 individuals were used for the analysis. The response rate was 26.9% (n = 210,189; Yabe et al., 2014). The total number of participants whose data were dropped due to exclusion criteria and/or missing data was 14,082 (6,185 men [43.9%] and 7,897 women [56.1%]). By age group, these excluded observations consisted of 2,123 (15.1%) 20 to 49 year olds, 2,574 (18.3%) 50 to 64 year olds, and 9,385 (66.6%) individuals aged 65 and older. Compared to the target population, the distribution of gender in the analysis population was similar, but some differences were present in the age distribution. The number of those between 65 years old and older (66.6%) was the highest in the participants who were dropped due to exclusion criteria and/or missing data. On the other hand, the number of those in the 65 years and older category was lower in the target population (29.2%).

Measurements

Risk of Serious Mental Illness Including Mood and Anxiety Disorders

This study used Kessler's K6 to analyze risk of serious mental illness among the evacuees. This scale is used to screen for nonspecific serious mental illness (Kessler et al., 2003), including DSM‐IV mood and anxiety disorders (Furukawa et al., 2008). Scores on the K6 scale range from 0 to 24. Based on previous K6 validation (Kessler et al., 2003), responses were divided into 2 groups: Those in the 13 to 24 range were classified as “probable serious mental illness,” while those in the 0 to 12 range were classified as “probable mild–moderate/probable no mental illness” (Kessler et al., 2006). Participants were asked whether they had experienced any of the following symptoms during the past 30 days: “feeling so sad that nothing could cheer you up,” “nervous,” “hopeless,” “restless or fidgety,” “that everything was an effort,” and “worthless” (Kessler et al., 2010). Each question was rated on a 5‐point Likert scale from zero (“never”) to 4 (“all of the time”) (Furukawa et al., 2008). Kessler's K6 scale shows a screening capacity to indicate psychological distress and has been used in disaster settings, such as in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (Galea et al., 2007). This study used the Japanese version of the K6, which has been empirically validated as an independent means of screening for serious mental illness among evacuees (Furukawa et al., 2008).

Classification of Drinking Behavior Patterns

Respondents assessed their predisaster alcohol consumption as “didn't drink or only rarely (less than once a month)” or “drank (at least once a month).” In this survey, the participants assessed their predisaster consumption via the postdisaster survey; that is, they were not queried regarding their alcohol consumption directly in the predisaster period.

Respondents assessed their current (i.e., postdisaster) drinking as “don't drink or only rarely (less than once a month),” “quit” (i.e., with a history of drinking, but not a current drinker), or “drink (at least once a month).” Current drinkers were categorized into 3 types of drinking patterns based on their frequency of drinking, beverage type consumed, and the amount consumed per typical drinking bout. We defined heavy drinking as 4 drinks (44 g and more of ethanol intake per day), while lower consumption levels were defined as “light drinkers.” A drink in this definition was c. 120 ml of spirits (e.g., whiskey or brandy), 480 ml of wine, 1,000 ml of beer, or 360 ml of Japanese sake.

Finally, we defined 6 groups according to pre‐ and postdisaster alcohol consumption patterns, as follows: Group A consisted of individuals who were pre‐ and postdisaster nondrinkers (“nondrinkers”); Group B consisted of predisaster nondrinkers who became light drinkers postdisaster (“newly started light drinkers”); Group C consisted of nondrinkers predisaster who became heavy drinkers postdisaster (“newly started heavy drinkers”); Group D consisted of drinkers predisaster who became abstinent postdisaster (“abstainers”); Group E contained drinkers predisaster transitioning to light drinkers postdisaster (“light drinkers”); and Group F encapsulated drinkers predisaster who became heavy drinkers postdisaster (“heavy drinkers”).

Sociodemographic Variables and Disaster‐Related Variables

Previous studies have linked demographic variables, education, occupational status, and disaster exposure with alcohol use and mental health in postdisaster contexts (Cerda et al., 2011; Nordløkken et al., 2013). Therefore, we also considered background information, socioeconomic factors, and disaster‐related factors as potential confounding variables for use in logistic regression analyses. Background information consisted of gender (men vs. women), age (20 to 49, 50 to 64, 65 years or older), educational attainment (elementary school, junior high school, high school, obtaining at least an undergraduate degree), and history of mental illness (yes or no). Socioeconomic factors consisted of change in work (i.e., any change in work from pre‐ to postdisaster; yes or no), loss of employment (yes or no), and decrease in income (yes or no). Disaster‐related factors consisted of house damage (less than partial collapse vs. partial collapse), experience of tsunami (yes or no), experience of nuclear power plant accident (defined as an experience hearing the explosion sound; yes or no), and loss of family or relatives (yes or no).

Statistical Analysis

Initially, we performed an exact chi‐square test to assess the proportion of K6 scores ≥13 according to predisaster alcohol drinking or nondrinking behavior among the participants. A 2 × 2 chi‐square test was used to assess differences in predisaster alcohol consumption for “no serious mental illness” and “serious mental illness” categories. We analyzed the differences in the distribution of “no serious mental illness” and “serious mental illness” among groups A, B, and C of the “predisaster nondrinkers,” and groups D, E, and F of the “postdisaster drinkers.” We showed how each postdisaster drinking pattern influenced the risk of serious mental illness. We applied logistic regression models to analyze how drinking patterns influenced the risk of serious mental illness after adjustment for the potentially confounding variables background information, socioeconomic factors, and disaster‐related factors. Drinking behavior patterns were included in Model 1. Drinking behavior patterns, background information (gender, age, educational attainment, history of mental illness), and socioeconomic factors (change in work, loss of employment, decrease in income) were included as variables in Model 2. In addition to drinking behavior patterns, background information, and socioeconomic factors, disaster‐related factors (house damage, experience of tsunami, experience of nuclear plant accident, loss of family or relatives) were included in Model 3. As there were some missing data in confounding variables, we used dummy variable for missing data to analysis in the multiple‐adjusted models. Significance was set at < 0.05. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics version 21.0 (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY).

Results

Table 1 provides the distribution of participants' basic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, disaster‐related factors, and K6 scores. The proportion of those with “probable serious mental illness” differed significantly from those without such illness with respect to gender, educational attainment, history of mental illness, change in work, loss of employment, decrease in income, house damage, experience of tsunami, experience of nuclear power plant accident, and loss of family or relatives (p‐values < 0.01 in all cases).

Table 1.

Participants' Sociodemographic Information and Disaster‐Related Situations (N = 56,543)

Total Probable no serious mental illness (K6 < 13) Probable serious mental illness (K6  13) df χ 2 p
n n % n %
Gender (N = 56,543)
Men 24,789 21,873 88.2 2,916 11.8 1 272.8 <0.01
Women 31,754 26,452 83.3 5,302 16.7
Age (N = 56,543)
20 to 49 years old 20,991 18,011 85.8 2,980 14.2 2 3.2 0.20
50 to 64 years old 19,047 16,229 85.2 2,818 14.8
65 years old and older 16,505 14,085 85.3 2,420 14.7
Educational attainment (N = 54,824)
Primary or middle school 11,852 10,012 84.5 1,840 15.5 3 63.4 <0.01
High school 27,871 23,755 85.2 4,116 14.8
Vocational college or junior college 10,107 8,677 85.9 1,430 14.1
University or graduate school 4,994 4,447 89.0 547 11.0
History of mental illness (N = 54,706)
Yes 2,701 1,492 55.2 1,209 44.8 1 2,207.6 <0.01
No  52,005 45,505 87.5 6,500 12.5
Socioeconomic factors
Change in work (N = 53,777)
Yes 30,310 24,897 82.1 5,413 17.9 1 717.1 <0.01
No 23,467 21,189 90.3 2,278 9.7
Loss of employment (N = 56,543)
Yes 12,341 9,855 79.9 2,486 20.1 1 400.0 <0.01
No 44,202 38,470 87.0 5,732 13.0
Decrease in income (N = 56,543)
Yes 11,032 9,136 82.8 1,896 17.2 1 77.6 <0.01
No 45,511 39,189 86.1 6,322 13.9
Disaster‐related factors
House damage (N = 52,947)
Partial collapse and more severe 8,309 6,613 79.6 1,696 20.4 1 301.6 <0.01
Less than partial collapse 44,638 38,768 86.8 5,870 13.2
Experience of tsunami (N = 56,543)
Yes 11,505 9,361 81.4 2,144 18.6 1 195.6 <0.01
No 45,038 38,768 86.5 6,074 13.5
Experience of nuclear power plant accident (N = 56,543)
Yes 29,778 24,332 81.7 5,446 18.3 1 713.9 <0.01
No 26,765 23,993 89.6 2,772 10.4
Loss of family or relatives (N = 55,465)
Yes 10,959 8,602 78.5 2,357 21.5 1 717.1 <0.01
No 44,506 38,884 87.4 5,622 12.6

As shown in Table 2, we divided participants into 2 groups, nondrinkers and drinkers, and compared the predisaster risk of serious mental health using the K6 scores. Surprisingly, both men and women predisaster nondrinkers (15.8%) had a higher proportional risk of serious mental illness than did predisaster drinkers (12.6%; < 0.01). Then, we analyzed the influence of postdisaster drinking behavior on the risk of serious mental illness (Table 3). Men and women newly started heavy drinkers (Group C) had the highest risk of serious mental illness among the predisaster nondrinker groups. The proportional risk of serious mental illness among newly started light drinkers (Group B) was higher than that of nondrinkers (Group A). However, abstainers (Group D) had the highest proportional risk of serious mental illness among the predisaster drinker groups.

Table 2.

The Impact of Predisaster Drinking Behavior on the Risk of Serious Mental Illness

Total Probable no serious mental illness (K6 < 13) Probable serious mental illness (K6 ≥ 13) df χ 2 p
n n % n %
Total (N = 54,082)
Nondrinkers 29,389 24,733 84.2 4,656 15.8 1 114.5 <0.01
Drinkers 24,693 21,581 87.4 3,112 12.6
Men (N = 23,866)
Nondrinkers 7,940 6,878 86.6 1,062 13.4 1 32.9 <0.01
Drinkers 15,926 14,199 89.2 1,727 10.8
Women (N = 30,216)
Nondrinkers 21,449 17,855 83.2 3,954 16.8 1 4.2 <0.01
Drinkers 8,767 7,382 84.2 1,385 15.8

Table 3.

The Impact of Pre‐ and Postdisaster Drinking Behavior on the Risk of Serious Mental Illness

Predisaster Postdisaster Total Probable no serious mental illness (K6 < 13) Probable serious mental illness (K6 ≥ 13) df χ 2 p
n n % n %
Nondrinkers (N = 28,700) Group A: Nondrinkers 26,144 22,168 84.8 3,976 15.2 2 99.5 <0.01
Group B: Newly started light drinkers 2,418 1,940 80.2 478 19.8
Group C: Newly started heavy drinkers 138 82 59.4 56 40.6
Drinkers (N = 23,509) Group D: Abstainers 1,572 1,254 79.8 318 20.2 2 116.1 <0.01
Group E: Light drinkers 16,466 14,610 88.7 1,856 11.3
Group F: Heavy drinkers 5,471 4,722 86.3 749 13.7

[Corrections added after publication on February 20, 2016: (N = 28,700) was moved from Group A to “Nondrinkers”; “Newly started light drinkers” in Group E was changed to “Light drinkers”; “Newly started heavy drinkers” in Group F was changed to “Heavy drinkers”]

Next, we conducted logistic regression analyses to examine how drinking behavior influenced the risk of serious mental illness, adjusting for background information, socioeconomic factors, and disaster‐related factors (Table 4). The light drinkers (Group E) were used as a reference in this analysis, because they had the lowest frequency of serious mental illness. Newly started heavy drinkers had a higher likelihood of serious mental illness compared to all other groups. When the light drinkers (Group E) were used as a reference in this analysis, newly started heavy drinkers (Group C) had the highest risk of serious mental illness (Model 1; OR = 5.20, 95% CI: 3.62 to 7.47). The model showed that beginning light drinkers (Group B) were also at higher risk of serious mental illness (Model 1; OR = 1.99, 95% CI: 1.76 to 2.25). After adjusting for background information, educational attainment, and socioeconomic factors (Model 2), compared with light drinkers (Group E), beginning heavy drinkers were 4.74 times more likely to have serious mental illness (Group C), and beginning light drinkers were 1.79 times more likely to have such illness (Group B). Model 3 showed that after adjusting for background information, educational attainment, socioeconomic factors, and disaster‐related factors, compared with light drinkers (Group E), newly heavy drinkers were 4.13 times more likely to have serious mental illness (Group C), and beginning light drinkers (Group B) were 1.74 times more likely to have such illness. Regarding serious mental illness stratified by gender, the multivariable‐adjusted odds ratios (95% CI) for serious mental illness for the newly started light drinkers and heavy drinkers were 1.66 (1.34 to 2.06) and 4.43 (2.78 to 7.04) for men, respectively, and 1.72 (1.47 to 2.02) and 3.34 (1.67 to 6.68) for women.

Table 4.

Impact of Drinking Behavior on Risk of Serious Mental Illness (K6 ≥ 13)

Model 1a (n = 44,358) Model 2b (n = 44,358) Model 3c (n = 44,358)
OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Reference (Group E): Light drinkers 1.00 1.00 1.00
Group A: Nondrinkers 1.34 1.25 to 1.43 1.14 1.06 to 1.23 1.14 1.06 to 1.23
Group B: Newly started light drinkers 1.99 1.76 to 2.25 1.79 1.58 to 2.03 1.74 1.54 to 1.98
Group C: Newly started heavy drinkers 5.20 3.62 to 7.47 4.74 3.25 to 6.92 4.13 2.81 to 6.08
Group D: Abstainers 1.82 1.57 to 2.12 1.47 1.26 to 1.72 1.44 1.23 to 1.69
Group F: Heavy drinkers 1.24 1.12 to 1.37 1.31 1.18 to 1.45 1.26 1.13 to 1.40
Background information
Gender (reference: Men)
Women 1.46 1.37 to 1.56 1.50 1.40 to 1.60
Age (reference: 20 to 49 years old)
50 to 64 years old 1.09 1.02 to 1.17 1.02 0.95 to 1.09
65 years and older 1.12 1.04 to 1.22 0.96 0.88 to 1.04
Educational attainment (reference: Primary or Middle school)
High school 0.91 0.85 to 0.99 0.85 0.79 to 0.92
Vocational college or junior college 0.82 0.75 to 0.91 0.78 0.71 to 0.86
University or graduate school 0.77 0.68 to 0.87 0.73 0.64 to 0.82
History of mental illness (reference: No)
Yes 5.58 5.08 to 6.13 5.40 4.91 to 5.94
Socioeconomic factors
Change in work (reference: No)
Yes 1.76 1.65 to 1.93 1.56 1.44 to 1.68
Loss of employment (reference: No)
Yes 1.27 1.18 to 1.36 1.20 1.12 to 1.29
Decrease in income (reference: No)
Yes 1.05 0.98 to 1.14 1.05 0.98 to 1.14
Disaster‐related factors
House damage (reference: Less than partial collapse)
Partial collapse and more severe 1.26 1.17 to 1.36
Experience of tsunami (reference: No)
Yes 1.10 1.03 to 1.18
Experience of nuclear plant accidentd (reference: No)
Yes 1.72 1.62 to 1.83
Loss of family or relatives (reference: No)
Yes 1.54 1.44 to 1.64
a

Model 1: Unadjusted odds ratio.

b

Model 2: Odds ratio adjusted by background information and socioeconomic factors.

c

Model 3: Odds ratio adjusted by background information, socioeconomic factors, and disaster‐related factors.

d

Defined as having heard the explosion caused by the nuclear accident.

Discussion

Key Findings

In this study, to understand the risk of serious mental illness among the evacuees after a compound disaster, we investigated postdisaster alcohol drinking behavior, finding that the beginning heavy drinkers had the highest risk of serious mental illness. In addition, we found that the beginning light drinkers had a relatively high risk of mental health problems. In contrast, our data showed that abstainers also had some risk to their mental health. Thus, to assess evacuees' risk of serious mental illness, it is important to assess any postdisaster changes in their drinking behavior.

Interpretation

Overall, these findings have implications for how we understand the association between drinking behavior and the risk of serious mental illness after a compound disaster. Previous studies have shown that alcohol consumption patterns change after traumatic events (Caldera et al., 2001; McFarlane, 1998; Nordløkken et al., 2013) and there is a consequent risk of developing serious mental illness (Joseph et al., 1993). Nordløkken and colleagues (2013) reported that experience of the 2004 South‐East Asia tsunami was associated with both increased and decreased drinking among 830 Norwegians survivors. The results of their study suggested associations between disaster exposure and self‐perceived changes in alcohol consumption after the traumatic event. We confirmed a similar association within a large sample (n = 56,543): The evacuees who experienced traumatic events after the compound disaster were more likely to report changes in their drinking behavior. Further, we found that newly started light drinkers had a greater risk of serious mental illness than those who had maintained a light‐drinking habit. In addition, we found that abstainers had 1.44 times the risk of serious mental illness than those who continued to drink. Indeed, among the middle aged in Japan, ex‐drinkers are more vulnerable to subsequent death by suicide compared to occasional drinkers (Akechi et al., 2006). The evacuees may have experienced withdrawal from their social life, which used to consist of drinking with their friends in the predisaster period. Thus, the postdisaster loss of community could be a direct cause of their risk of serious mental illness.

In this study, both men and women newly heavy drinkers had the greatest risk of serious mental illness; the onset of heavy drinking increased the postdisaster risk of serious mental illness. Prospective studies have indicated that heavy drinking has an attendant risk of serious mental illness (Gea et al., 2013; Sullivan et al., 2005). In contrast, heavy drinking could be associated with the social environment and related issues. Individuals with both depression and alcohol problems may have experienced significantly more negative life events than alcoholics without depression and nonalcoholics (Roy, 1996). This finding implies that the evacuees in Fukushima could have accumulated feelings of depression due to the long‐term evacuation, as a consequence of which they might have started drinking. Nevertheless, there are 3 interpretations as to why newly heavy drinkers had a greater prevalence of mental health issues. First, increased postdisaster drinking heightens the risk of serious mental illness. Second, the onset of serious mental health problems increases the risk of engaging in heavy drinking. Third, both of these possibilities could operate concurrently.

Implications

We presented key data as to how the newly started heavy drinkers following a compound disaster suffer from serious mental illness. Therefore, it is important to consider how to assist this group as clinical practitioners. Although these heavy drinkers formed the smallest group among the drinking pattern groups, it is desirable to provide care for them in terms of the services they need. In addition to the beginning heavy drinkers, our findings showed that beginning light drinkers have some risk. The results suggest that the beginning drinkers following this compound disaster need to consider the risks to their mental health, and that their mental health needs must be addressed. It is necessary to develop an intervention plan for permanent multidisciplinary mental health care for beginning drinkers. Changed alcohol consumption behavior among evacuees after a compound disaster is common in those at risk of serious mental illness. It is important to investigate the relationships between changing drinking behavior after a compound disaster and risk of mental illness, that is, knowing the pathway could help practitioners intervene regarding alcohol consumption behaviors and risk of serious mental illness.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to show that the drinking patterns after the Great East Japan Earthquake had an impact on the risk of serious mental illness. This information is important so that practitioners can develop intervention plans for the evacuees.

Strengths and Limitations

Our study confirms that increased alcohol consumption following a compound disaster influences the risk of serious mental illness. This was a large‐scale study of all evacuees who were residents within the designated evacuation zone in Fukushima, and the study was conducted about 1 year after the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011. This study also had a methodological advantage, namely that we formed 6 groups based only on pre‐ and postdisaster alcohol consumption among the evacuees. In addition, few research studies have investigated the association between alcohol consumption behavior and the risk of serious mental illness after a compound disaster. Therefore, this study is significant in that it examined how drinking behaviors impact mental illness following a compound disaster, which included both the natural disaster itself and a subsequent radiation hazard.

However, our study also had some limitations. First, we assessed participants' mental illness using the K6 screening scale, which has been validated only when used to make an assessment (Stewart, 1996). Therefore, the assessment of mental illness among the participants in this study was not equivalent to a clinical diagnosis and might have been overestimated or underestimated (Myers and Weissman, 1980). Second, only respondents who returned their survey could be considered. Thus, some evacuees suffering from serious mental illness might not have been represented. Third, there were some differences in the distribution of ages between the study sample and the target population. Therefore, the results of the study may not reflect all of the evacuation zones specified by the government. Fourth, the predisaster data is lacking, and we were unable to determine accurately how much alcohol the participants consumed predisaster that would necessitate a prospective study. Fifth, the study lacks an assessment of alcohol abuse and dependence, for example, we did not use the CAGE questionnaire, which screens for alcoholism.

In conclusion, our results suggest that beginning drinkers have a higher proportional risk of serious mental illness. It should be noted that drinking behavior patterns are key to assessing the risk of serious mental illness among evacuees. As a result, prevention of alcohol abuse may have an important role in assessing serious mental illness. Understanding drinking behavior patterns among evacuees will have significant clinical implications for how to address mental illness in this population.

Funding

This survey was conducted as part of Fukushima Prefecture's postdisaster recovery plans and was supported by the National Health Fund for Children and Adults Affected by the Nuclear Incident.

Author Contributions

YU designed analyzed data and wrote the paper. HY, MM, TO, and SY drafted the paper and supervised this study. MH helped to design the analysis. SF, S‐IN, AO, and HM revised the paper critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the report for submissions.

Conflict of Interest

None reported.

Supporting information

Table S1. Impact of drinking behavior on risk of serious mental illness (K6 ≥ 13) among men.

Table S2. Impact of drinking behavior on risk of serious mental illness (K6 ≥13) among women.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank to Professor Evelyn Bromet (Stony Brook University, USA) and Teizo Fujita (Professor Emeritus, Fukushima Medical University) for their helpful advice. The findings and conclusions of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent the official views of Fukushima Prefecture government.

The Fukushima Health Management Survey Group, consisting of Masafumi Abe (Director General, Radiation Medical Center for the Fukushima Health Management Survey), Shunichi Yamashita (Vice Director, Radiation Medical Center for the Fukushima Health Management Survey), Kenji Kamiya (Vice Director, Radiation Medical Center for the Fukushima Health Management Survey), Seiji Yasumura (Vice Director, Radiation Medical Center for the Fukushima Health Management Survey), Makoto Akashi (National Institute of Radiological Sciences), Kazunori Kodama and Kotaro Ozasa (The Radiation Effects Research Foundation), Hirooki Yabe (Chairman of Mental Health Survey, Radiation Medical Science Center for the Fukushima Health Management Survey), Kenneth E. Nollet, Ohtsura Niwa, Akira Ohtsuru, Shiro Matsui, Shinichi Niwa, Tetsuya Ohira, Yasuto Kunii, Shuntaro Itagaki, Tetsuya Shiga, Hajime Iwasa, Yuriko Suzuki, Yoko Nakayama, Misao Ohta, Aya Goto, Mitsuru Hisata, Norito Kawakami, Mitsuaki Hosoya, Akiko Yagi, Yu‐ichi Oiwaka, Naoko Horikoshi, Yu‐ya Kashiwazaki, Go Takeda, Tetsunobu Hata, Hiroyuki Suguimoto, Yukiko Ito, Yuko Hino, Keisuke Hiyamizu, Kuni Kanke, Suzuko Yasuhara, Shizu Igarashi, Ai Kawamura, Aiko Matsuda, Mariko Hara, Yuriko Kimura, Yuki Kumasaka, Natusumi Sasaki, Miho Onji, Ryuchi Kurosawa, and Fumiko Mori.

The copyright line for this article was changed on 03 May 2016 after original online publication.

References

  1. Akechi T, Iwasaki M, Uchitomi Y, Tsugane S (2006) Alcohol consumption and suicide among middle‐aged men in Japan. Br J Psychiatry 188:231–236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blomeyer D, Buchmann AF, Schmid B, Jennen‐Steinmetz C, Schmidt MH, Banaschewski T, Laucht M (2011) Age at first drink moderates the impact of current stressful life events on drinking behavior in young adults. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 35:1142–1148. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Caldera T, Palma L, Penayo U, Kullgren G (2001) Psychological impact of the hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua in a one‐year perspective. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 36:108–114. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cerda M, Tracy M, Galea S (2011) A prospective population based study of changes in alcohol and binge drinking after a mass traumatic event. Drug Alcohol Depend 115:1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Fergusson DM, Horwood J, Boden JM, Mulder RT (2014) Impact of a major disaster on the mental health of a well‐studied cohort. JAMA 71:1025–1031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Flory K, Hankin BL, Kloos B, Cheely C, Turecki G (2009) Alcohol and cigarette use and misuse among Hurricane Katrina survivors: psychosocial risk and protective factors. Subst Use Misuse 44:1711–1724. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Furukawa TA, Kawakami N, Saitoh M, Ono Y, Nakane Y, Nakamura Y, Tachimori H, Iwata N, Uda H, Nakane H, Watanabe M, Naganuma Y, Hata Y, Kobayashi M, Miyake Y, Takeshima T, Kikkawa T (2008) The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 17:152–158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Galea S, Brewin CR, Gruber M, Gruber M, Jones RR, King DW, King LA, McNally RJ, Ursano RJ, Petukhova M, Kessler RC (2007) Exposure to hurricane‐related stressors and mental illness after Hurricane Katrina. Arch Gen Psychiatry 64:1427–1434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Gea A, Beunza JJ, Estruch R, Sánchez‐Villegas A, Salas‐Salvadó J, Buil‐Cosials P, Gómez‐Gracia E, Mariá‐Isable C, Corella D, Fiol M, Fernando A, Josê L, Lamuela‐Raventós RM, Wärnberg J, Pintó X, Serrra‐Majem L, Martínez‐González MA; PREDIMED Group (2013) Alcohol intake, wine consumption and the development of depression: the PREDIMED study. BMC Med 11:192–201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hussain A, Weisaeth L, Heir T (2011) Psychiatric disorders and functional impairment among disaster victims after exposure to a natural disaster: a population based study. J Affect Disord 128:135–141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Joseph S, Yule W, Williams R, Hodgkinson P (1993) Increased substance use in survivors of the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. Br J Med Psychol 66:185–191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E, Howest MJ, Normand SL, Manderschneid RW, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM (2003) Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60:184–189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kessler RC, Galea S, Jones RT, Parker HA (2006) Mental illness and suicidality after Hurricane Katrina. Bull World Health Organ 84:930–939. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kessler RC, Green JG, Gruber MJ, Sampson MA, Bromet E, Cuitan M, Furukawa TA, Gureje O, Hinkov H, Hu CY, Lara C, Lee S, Mneimneh Z, Myer L, Oakley‐Browne M, Posada‐Villa J, Sagar R, Viana MC, Zaslavsky AM (2010) Screening for serious mental illness in the general population with the K6 screening scale: results from the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 19:4–22. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Keyes KM, Hatzenbuehler ML, Hasin DS (2011) Stressful life experiences, alcohol consumption, and alcohol use disorders: the epidemiologic evidence for four main types of stressors. Psychopharmacology 218:1–17. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. McFarlane AC (1998) Epidemiological evidence about the relationship between PTSD and alcohol abuse: the nature of the association. Addict Behav 23:813–825. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Myers JK, Weissman MM (1980) Use of a self‐report symptom scale to detect depression in a community sample. Am J Psychiatry 137:1081–1084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Nordløkken A, Pape H, Wentzel‐Larsen T, Heir T (2013) Changes in alcohol consumption after a natural disaster: a study of Norwegian survivors after the 2004 Southeast Asia tsunami. BMC Public Health 13:58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Roy A (1996) Aetiology of secondary depression in male alcoholics. Br J Psychiatry 169:753–757. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Stewart SH (1996) Alcohol abuse in individuals exposed to trauma: a critical review. Psychol Bull 120:83–112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Sullivan LE, Fiellin DA, O'Connor PG (2005) The prevalence and impact of alcohol problems in major depression: a systematic review. Am J Med 118:330–341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Wagner KD, Brief D, Vielhauer MJ, Sussman S, Keane TM, Malow R (2009) The potential for PTSD, substance use, and HIV risk behavior among adolescents exposed to Hurricane Katrina. Subst Use Misuse 44:1749–1767. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Yabe H, Suzuki Y, Mashiko H, Nakayama Y, Hisata M, Niwa S, Yasumura S, Yamashita S, Kamiya K, Abe M; Mental Health Group of the Fukushima Health Management Survey (2014) Psychological distress after the great east Japan earthquake and Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident: results of a mental and lifestyle survey through the Fukushima Health Management Survey in FY 2011 and FY 2012. Fukushima J Med Sci 60:1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Yasumura S, Hosoya M, Yamashita S, Kamiya K, Abe M, Akashi M, Kodama K, Ozasa K; Fukushima Health Management Survey Group (2012) Study protocol for the Fukushima Health Management Survey. J Epidemiol 22:375–383. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Table S1. Impact of drinking behavior on risk of serious mental illness (K6 ≥ 13) among men.

Table S2. Impact of drinking behavior on risk of serious mental illness (K6 ≥13) among women.


Articles from Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES