ArticleThe Australian journal of rural health2025
Provision of Evidence-Informed Psychological Interventions Following the Queensland (Australia) 2010-11 Floods and Cyclones; the Barriers and Successes.
Article in The Australian journal of rural health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Mental health consequences of the 2024 Feni flash flood in Bangladesh: prevalence and risk factors.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study assessed the impact on clinicians' 'perception of skills' in postdisaster evidence-informed care (EIC) following participation in an online training programme implemented following the Queensland floods and cyclones of 2010-11, clinician confidence to provide EIC, the frequency clinicians used EIC and barriers to providing postdisaster specialist mental health care.
designClinician perception of pre and posttraining skills, confidence in providing therapies such as trauma-focused cognitive behaviour therapy (TF-CBT), frequency of therapies provided and clinician perception of barriers to the programme were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingClinical staff (n = 60) employed by the 2010-11 postdisaster mental health programme participated in an online survey conducted over the last 12 weeks of 2012. After the programme concluded an independent audit of the clinical record of mental health clients treated by clinicians employed in the specialist mental health programme was undertaken. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Perception of clinical skills in various EIC modalities was completed pre and posttraining. Confidence to provide a treatment was rated on a five-point scale. The clinical record audit identified the treatments provided to clients. Barriers to programme delivery were rated on a five-point scale, with qualitative feedback highlighting programme concerns.
resultsPosttraining clinicians perceived skills in TF-CBT (p < 0.0001), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) (p < 0.001) and exposure therapy (p < 0.001) had improved. Following training, clinicians described themselves as moderately to extremely confident in implementing TF-CBT (87%), exposure therapy (80%) and skills for psychological recovery (SPR) (88%). Clinical records analysis indicates that 25% of cases received no TF-CBT, while 43% received one to five sessions. Barriers to care included a lack of cross-service relationships. Recommendations focused on training and early commencement of intervention programmes.
conclusionThe study echoes the findings of the 2020 Australian Bushfire Royal Commission recommendations that highlighted a need for clinician training in postdisaster EIC and the availability of clinicians with specialised postdisaster mental health skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.