ArticleBMC psychology2026
A disaster in the disaster: a study on post-traumatic stress symptoms among flood relief workers in Pakistan.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPakistan’s 2025 monsoon floods created extreme humanitarian demands, exposing frontline relief workers to sustained trauma, hazardous conditions, and challenging safety resources. While post-traumatic stress among disaster survivors in Pakistan is documented, little evidence exists regarding responders. This study assessed post-traumatic stress symptoms among flood-relief workers and examined factors associated with elevated Impact of Event Scale–Revised (IES-R) scores.
methodsA cross-sectional analytical survey was conducted in September to October 2025 among verified frontline responders deployed by Alkhidmat Foundation in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. A structured bilingual questionnaire captured demographic, occupational, and exposure variables, followed by the 22-item IES-R. Purposive roster-based sampling yielded 239 respondents (62% response rate). Descriptive statistics summarized characteristics; Mann–Whitney U, Kruskal–Wallis, χ² tests, ordinal logistic regression, and multivariable linear regression assessed associations between exposure variables and IES-R outcomes.
resultsMean IES-R score was 35.6 ± 18.9, indicating moderate distress; 52.7% scored ≥ 33, 52.7% scored at or above commonly used screening thresholds suggestive of probable PTSD. Direct contact with injured or deceased victims was strongly associated with higher total IES-R scores (p = 0.0028) and independently predicted greater severity (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.22–2.85). Paid staff showed higher distress than volunteers (p = 0.019; OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.08–2.45). Limited personal protective equipment (PPE) availability correlated with increased severity (p = 0.0097; OR 0.71 across ordered levels of PPE availability; 95% CI 0.56–0.91). Debriefing exposure showed no significant effect. Subscale analyses confirmed similar patterns across Intrusion, Hyperarousal, and Avoidance domains.
conclusionResponders deployed through a large humanitarian organization in KPK and Punjab demonstrated a high burden of post-traumatic stress symptoms, appears higher than some previously reported estimates among disaster responders, though differences in instruments and thresholds limit direct comparison. Direct trauma exposure, professional role, and inadequate protective resources were key contributors. Findings underscore the need to integrate responder-focused mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS), adequate safety measures, and structured resilience strategies into Pakistan’s disaster-response systems.
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.