Post-Tsunami Medical Care: Health Problems Encountered in the International Committee of the Red Cross Hospital in Banda Aceh, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: When the Tsunami struck Asia on 26 December 2004, Aceh, Indonesia suffered more damage than did any other region. After the Tsunami, many humanitarian organizations provided aid in Aceh. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), along with the Indonesian and Norwegian Red Cross opened a field hospital in Banda Aceh on 16 January 2005. This study describes the illnesses seen in the out-patient department/casualty department (OPD/CD) of the ICRC hospital nine weeks after the Tsunami. It describes the percentage of people seen for problems directly related to the Tsunami, and includes a basic screening for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). METHODS: A prospective, five-day study was performed from 01-05 March 2005. Patients registering in the ICRC field hospital in Banda Aceh were considered for the study. Data collected included: (1) age; (2) gender; (3) diagnosis in the OPD/CD; and (4) whether or not the problem was related directly to the Tsunami. Seven basic questions were asked to screen for depression and PTSD symptoms. RESULTS: Twelve percent of the problems seen in the OPD/CD nine weeks after the Tsunami still were related directly to the Tsunami. Sixty-three percent of patients in the study were male. The medical problems included: (1) urological (19%); (2) digestive (16%); (3) respiratory (12%); and (4) musculoskeletal (12%). Although <2% of patients were diagnosed with a mental health problem, 24% had at least four or more of the seven depression/PTSD symptoms addressed in the study. CONCLUSIONS: Post-earthquake and post-tsunami health problems and medical needs differ from those found in conflict zones. After the Tsunami, both surgical and primary healthcare teams were needed. Many problems were chronic medical problems, which may be indicative of the lack of healthcare infrastructure before the Tsunami. The findings suggest that mental health issues must be taken into consideration for future planning. The ethical issues of performing research in complex emergencies also need further development at the international level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".