The influence of a disaster on the health of rescue workers: a longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rescue workers strive, after disasters, to help victims and restrict damage, often in dangerous circumstances. We examined the effect of a disaster on the physical and psychological health of rescue workers (firefighters, police officers and medical emergency services personnel) who provided assistance after the explosion of a fireworks depot in the Netherlands in May 2000. METHODS: We carried out a 4-year longitudinal study of 1403 rescue workers employed in or near the affected neighbourhood (the study group) and a control group of 1650 uninvolved rescue workers (from another city of similar size and urbanization). Health outcomes were measured as prevalence, incidence (both measured as the percent of workers who took sick leave), frequency of the absences and number of sick days (both per 100 workers), and duration (mean length of sickness absences, in days). RESULTS: Sick leave among the study workers increased substantially during the 18 months after the explosion. For example, the prevalence of absences attributed to psychological problems increased from 2.5% of workers during the 6 months before the disaster to 4.6% during the first 6-month period after the explosion and 5.1% during the second. That for respiratory problems rose from 5.4% predisaster to 14.9% 6-12 months afterward. In comparison with controls, immediate increases occurred in musculoskeletal, psychological, respiratory and nonspecific ill health (e.g., malaise, fatigue) during the first year postdisaster. Rates of sick leave for musculoskeletal and respiratory reasons remained elevated until 3 years postdisaster, whereas leave for psychological problems and other ill health had returned to predisaster levels by then. Neurological problems increased after a 1-year delay. No significant increase in gastrointestinal problems was observed among the study workers, in comparison with controls. INTERPRETATION: Many health problems arise immediately after a disaster and may persist for years. Health care workers should realize, however, that some disaster-related effects may not emerge until a year or more after the event.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".