Table 2.
Sociodemographic characteristics and key effect modifiers among individuals at the top 10% versus the bottom 10% of the estimated conditional average treatment effect of disaster damages on depressive symptoms and PTSS in 2013†,‡
| Outcome | Depressive symptoms§ | PTSS¶ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Exposure | Home loss (n = 1559) | Loss of loved ones (n = 1583) | Home loss (n = 1630) | Loss of loved ones (n = 1644) | ||||
|
|
|
|||||||
| Group | Vulnerable (n = 156) | Resilient (n = 156) | Vulnerable (n = 159) | Resilient (n = 159) | Vulnerable (n = 163) | Resilient (n = 163) | Vulnerable (n = 165) | Resilient (n = 165) |
|
| ||||||||
| CATE estimates, mean (SD)†† | 1.75 (0.16) | 0.98 (0.19) | 0.37 (0.10) | −0.18 (0.06) | 1.70 (0.06) | 0.81 (0.13) | 0.87 (0.05) | 0.44 (0.05) |
| Age, mean (SD), y | 73.0 (6.40) | 74.0 (6.52) | 73.1 (6.72) | 72.9 (5.81) | 70.6 (5.14) | 76.3 (7.47) | 73.2 (5.99) | 70.8 (4.71) |
| Sex, n (%) | ||||||||
| Men | 66 (42.3) | 87 (55.8) | 64 (40.3) | 78 (49.1) | 76 (46.6) | 103 (63.2) | 88 (53.3) | 92 (55.8) |
| Women | 90 (57.7) | 69 (44.2) | 95 (59.7) | 81 (50.9) | 87 (53.4) | 60 (36.8) | 77 (46.7) | 73 (44.2) |
| Marital status, n (%) | ||||||||
| Married | 125 (80.1) | 97 (62.2) | 112(70.4) | 132 (83.0) | 147 (90.2) | 88 (54.0) | 111 (67.3) | 133 (80.6) |
| Widowed | 31 (19.9) | 52 (33.3) | 42 (26.4) | 18 (11.3) | 12 (7.4) | 65 (39.9) | 47 (28.5) | 23 (13.9) |
| Divorced | 0(0) | 4 (2.6) | 2(1.3) | 3(1.9) | 1 (0.6) | 3(1.8) | 5 (3.0) | 3(1.8) |
| Single | 0 (0) | 3 (1.9) | 2(1.3) | 6 (3.8) | 2(1.2) | 7 (4.3) | 1 (0.6) | 6 (3.6) |
| Other | 0 (0) | 0(0) | 1 (0.6) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.6) | 0(0) | 1 (0.6) | 0(0) |
| Living alone, n (%) | ||||||||
| Not living alone | 146 (93.6) | 134 (85.9) | 147 (92.5) | 151 (95.0) | 158 (96.9) | 143 (87.7) | 147 (89.1) | 155 (93.9) |
| Living alone | 10 (6.4) | 22 (14.1) | 12 (7.5) | 8 (5.0) | 5(3.1) | 20(12.3) | 18 (10.9) | 10 (6.1) |
| Education, n (%) | ||||||||
| <6 y | 0(0) | 5 (3.2) | 6 (3.8) | 0(0) | 1 (0.6) | 10(6.1) | 2(1.2) | 1 (0.6) |
| 6–9 y | 40 (25.6) | 41 (26.3) | 85 (53.5) | 22 (13.8) | 11 (6.7) | 75 (46.0) | 50 (30.3) | 22 (13.3) |
| 10–12y | 72 (46.2) | 72 (46.2) | 56 (35.2) | 74 (46.5) | 88 (54.0) | 51 (31.3) | 84 (50.9) | 96 (58.2) |
| ≥13 yr | 44 (28.2) | 38 (24.4) | 12 (7.5) | 63 (39.6) | 63 (38.7) | 27 (16.6) | 28 (17.0) | 46 (27.9) |
| Other | 0 (0) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.6) | 0(0) |
| Job, n (%) | ||||||||
| Working | 40 (25.6) | 20 (12.8) | 33 (20.8) | 23 (14.5) | 35 (21.5) | 24 (14.7) | 41 (24.8) | 26 (15.8) |
| Retired | 93 (59.6) | 110 (70.5) | 101 (63.5) | 100 (62.9) | 102 (62.6) | 99 (60.7) | 96 (58.2) | 116 (70.3) |
| Never worked | 23 (14.7) | 26 (16.7) | 25 (15.7) | 36 (22.6) | 26 (16.0) | 40 (24.5) | 28 (17.0) | 23 (13.9) |
| Household income [10 000 yen], mean (SD)‡‡ | 329 (249) | 225 (117) | 186 (138) | 263 (124) | 282 (108) | 200 (175) | 155 (97.2) | 294 (125) |
| Body mass index, mean (SD) | 23.5 (2.66) | 22.0 (3.98) | 23.7 (3.11) | 23.6 (2.82) | 22.7 (1.99) | 23.5 (3.68) | 24.0 (2.77) | 23.1 (3.05) |
| Sense of coherence, mean (SD) | 22.3 (3.54) | 19.6 (4.78) | 19.2 (4.34) | 22.9 (3.52) | 26.8 (2.13) | 17.5 (3.39) | 22.2 (3.84) | 22.3 (4.20) |
| Baseline GDS score, mean (SD) | 3.04 (2.69) | 5.70 (4.45) | 6.63 (4.21) | 2.96 (2.78) | 0.87 (1.16) | 7.79 (3.78) | 3.41 (3.25) | 2.84 (3.06) |
| Self-rated health, n (%) | ||||||||
| Bad | 21 (13.5) | 7 (4.5) | 19(11.9) | 17 (10.7) | 34 (20.9) | 10(6.1) | 4 (2.4) | 42 (25.5) |
| Not good | 116 (74.4) | 76 (48.7) | 91 (57.2) | 95 (59.7) | 126 (77.3) | 79 (48.5) | 131 (79.4) | 112 (67.9) |
| Good | 17 (10.9) | 45 (28.8) | 38 (23.9) | 42 (26.4) | 3(1.8) | 57 (35.0) | 28 (17.0) | 9 (5.5) |
| Very good | 2(1.3) | 28 (17.9) | 11 (6.9) | 5(3.1) | 0 (0) | 17(10.4) | 2(1.2) | 2(1.2) |
As key effect modifiers, we chose the top 3 variables in the variable importance ranking from generalized random forest.
The top 10% of the distributions of individual effects were labeled as the “vulnerable” group because they showed greater associations between disaster damages and increased depressive symptoms/posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). The bottom 10% of the distributions of individual effects were labeled as the “resilient” group because they showed weaker associations between disaster damages and increased depressive symptoms/PTSS.
We used the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS; range, 0–15 points; higher scores indicate more PTSS) to assess depressive symptoms.
We used the Screening Questionnaire for Disaster Mental Health (range, 0–9 points; higher scores indicate more PTSS) to assess PTSS.
Conditional average treatment effects (CATEs) were estimated via the generalized random forest algorithm.
Annual household income (unit: 10 000 yen) was divided by the square root of the number of household members to account for household size.