Table 3.
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 2016†,‡
| Outcome | Depressive symptoms§ | PTSS¶ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|||||||
| Exposure | Home loss (n = 1150) | Loss of loved ones (n = 1165) | Home loss (n = 1262) | Loss of loved ones (n = 1282) | ||||
|
|
|
|||||||
| Group | Vulnerable (n = 115) | Resilient (n = 115) | Vulnerable (n = 117) | Resilient (n = 117) | Vulnerable (n = 127) | Resilient (n = 127) | Vulnerable (n = 129) | Resilient (n = 129) |
|
| ||||||||
| CATE estimates, mean (SD)†† | 0.43 (0.07) | 0.00 (0.06) | 0.23 (0.05) | −0.15 (0.05) | 1.44 (0.07) | 1.14 (0.06) | 0.37 (0.04) | 0.03 (0.05) |
| Age, mean (SD), y | 72.4 (5.92) | 71.3 (5.30) | 73.8 (6.16) | 70.5 (4.80) | 71.6 (4.19) | 72.7 (6.51) | 72.4 (5.15) | 70.7 (5.51) |
| Sex, n (%) | ||||||||
| Men | 63 (54.8) | 58 (50.4) | 48 (41.0) | 55 (47.0) | 47 (37.0) | 78 (61.4) | 32 (24.8) | 103 (79.8) |
| Women | 52 (45.2) | 57 (49.6) | 69 (59.0) | 62 (53.0) | 80 (63.0) | 49 (38.6) | 97 (75.2) | 26 (20.2) |
| Marital status, n (%) | ||||||||
| Married | 85 (73.9) | 86 (74.8) | 97 (82.9) | 87 (74.4) | 102 (80.3) | 88 (69.3) | 113 (87.6) | 76 (58.9) |
| Widowed | 25 (21.7) | 24 (20.9) | 19 (16.2) | 21 (17.9) | 17 (13.4) | 35 (27.6) | 13 (10.1) | 46 (35.7) |
| Divorced | 2(1.7) | 4 (3.5) | 0(0) | 5 (4.3) | 4(3.1) | 2(1.6) | 1 (0.8) | 4(3.1) |
| Single | 2(1.7) | 1 (0.9) | 0 (0) | 3 (2.6) | 3 (2.4) | 1 (0.8) | 2(1.6) | 2(1.6) |
| Others | 1 (0.9) | 0(0) | 1 (0.9) | 1 (0.9) | 1 (0.8) | 1 (0.8) | 0 (0) | 1 (0.8) |
| Living alone, n (%) | ||||||||
| Not living alone | 105 (91.3) | 104 (90.4) | 114 (97.4) | 101 (86.3) | 115 (90.6) | 112 (88.2) | 125 (96.9) | 112(86.8) |
| Living alone | 10 (8.7) | 11 (9.6) | 3 (2.6) | 16 (13.7) | 12 (9.4) | 15 (11.8) | 4(3.1) | 17(13.2) |
| Education, n (%) | ||||||||
| <6 y | 3 (2.6) | 0 (0) | 4 (3.4) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 5 (3.9) | 1 (0.8) | 4(3.1) |
| 6–9 y | 26 (22.6) | 26 (22.6) | 19 (16.2) | 54 (46.2) | 13 (10.2) | 63 (49.6) | 17 (13.2) | 42 (32.6) |
| 10–12y | 59 (51.3) | 52 (45.2) | 67 (57.3) | 35 (29.9) | 71 (55.9) | 39 (30.7) | 68 (52.7) | 58 (45.0) |
| ≥13 y | 27 (23.5) | 37 (32.2) | 27 (23.1) | 28 (23.9) | 42 (33.1) | 20 (15.7) | 43 (33.3) | 23 (17.8) |
| Others | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 1 (0.8) | 0(0) | 0(0) | 2(1.6) |
| Job, n (%) | ||||||||
| Working | 11 (9.6) | 40 (34.8) | 17 (14.5) | 30 (25.6) | 22 (17.3) | 30 (23.6) | 28 (21.7) | 25 (19.4) |
| Retired | 89 (77.4) | 64 (55.7) | 83 (70.9) | 72 (61.5) | 95 (74.8) | 63 (49.6) | 100 (77.5) | 55 (42.6) |
| Never worked | 15 (13.0) | 11 (9.6) | 17 (14.5) | 15 (12.8) | 10 (7.9) | 34 (26.8) | 1 (0.8) | 49 (38.0) |
| Household income [10,000 yen], mean (SD)‡‡ | 233 (99.7) | 317 (270) | 243 (127) | 202 (108) | 197 (127) | 236 (139) | 247 (94.1) | 253 (164) |
| Body mass index, mean (SD) | 21.5 (3.22) | 25.6 (3.60) | 22.6 (3.22) | 23.8 (3.00) | 24.6 (3.66) | 23.7 (2.90) | 23.0 (2.06) | 25.0 (3.52) |
| Sense of coherence, mean (SD) | 18.3 (3.74) | 24.7 (3.50) | 20.8 (4.69) | 21.6 (3.92) | 21.6 (4.63) | 22.5 (3.97) | 20.6 (3.16) | 23.0 (4.48) |
| Baseline GDS score, mean (SD) | 6.43 (3.52) | 1.73 (2.17) | 4.96 (3.40) | 4.23 (3.71) | 3.91 (4.14) | 3.38 (3.27) | 4.44 (2.64) | 3.17 (3.74) |
| Self-rated health, n (%) | ||||||||
| Bad | 8 (7.0) | 23 (20.0) | 8 (6.8) | 16 (13.7) | 14 (11.0) | 11 (8.7) | 8 (6.2) | 22(17.1) |
| Not good | 80 (69.6) | 81 (70.4) | 88 (75.2) | 81 (69.2) | 94 (74.0) | 93 (73.2) | 100 (77.5) | 85 (65.9) |
| Good | 18 (15.7) | 10 (8.7) | 18 (15.4) | 16 (13.7) | 16 (12.6) | 19 (15.0) | 21 (16.3) | 19 (14.7) |
| Very good | 9 (7.8) | 1 (0.9) | 3 (2.6) | 4 (3.4) | 3 (2.4) | 4(3.1) | 0(0) | 3 (2.3) |
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 depressive symptoms) 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.