Disaster Victim Care by Emergency Surgeons One Year after the Great East Japan Earthquake

2016 ◽  
Vol 06 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kojiro Shiga ◽  
Koichiro Homma
2013 ◽  
Vol 144 (5) ◽  
pp. S-327-S-328
Author(s):  
Takuto Hikichi ◽  
Masaki Sato ◽  
Yutaka Ejiri ◽  
Ryoichi Ishihata ◽  
Atsushi Irisawa ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yutaka Yabe ◽  
Yoshihiro Hagiwara ◽  
Takuya Sekiguchi ◽  
Yumi Sugawara ◽  
Masahiro Tsuchiya ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem experienced after natural disasters. LBP is often concurrent with other musculoskeletal pain; however, the effects of preexisting musculoskeletal pain on the development of LBP are not clear. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the association of musculoskeletal pain in other body sites with new-onset LBP among survivors of the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE). Methods: A longitudinal study was conducted with survivors of the GEJE. The survivors who did not have LBP at the three year time period after the GEJE were followed up one year later (n = 1,782). Musculoskeletal pain, such as low back, hand and/or foot, knee, shoulder, and neck pain, were assessed with self-reported questionnaires. The outcome of interest was new-onset LBP, which was defined as LBP absent at three years but present at four years after the disaster. The main predictor was musculoskeletal pain in other body sites three years after the GEJE, which was categorized according to the number of pain sites (0, 1, ≥ 2). Multiple regression analyses were performed to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for new-onset LBP due to musculoskeletal pain in other body sites. Results: The incidence of new-onset LBP was 14.1% (251/1,782). Musculoskeletal pain in other body sites was significantly associated with new-onset LBP. Including people without other musculoskeletal pain as a reference, the adjusted OR and 95% CI for new-onset LBP were 1.73 (1.16-2.57) for people with one musculoskeletal pain site and 3.20 (2.01-5.09) for people with ≥ 2 sites (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Preexisting musculoskeletal pain in other body sites was associated with new-onset LBP among survivors in the recovery period after the GEJE .


2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (sp) ◽  
pp. 517-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Atsushi Koresawa ◽  

This paper analyzes how the Japanese government has responded to the March 11, 2011, Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent tsunamis that devastated cities and towns along the Pacific coast of northeastern Japan claiming many precious lives and causing extremely extensive destruction. The resilience of a society depends largely on how it identifies existing gaps, how it addresses them in the recovery process, and how it integrates solutions in the existing disastermanagement system as a result. From such a perspective, this paper examines the government’s response to the disaster for approximately the first one year following it by taking stock of progress made versus the priorities of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015.


2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eiichi Yamasaki ◽  
◽  
Haruo Hayashi ◽  

The main purpose of this paper is to explore the vulnerability of disaster victims from the perspective of immobility, in contrast to the conventional perspective of mobility. What causes immobility in Japan? And how have immobile people been treated? In this article, I will attempt to answer these questions using some concrete examples. Immobile people have been recognized as “people requiring assistance during a disaster” (PRADD). This term helps us understand immobility in Japan. The Sanjou flood (2004) prompted the formulation of the “Guidelines for Evacuation Support of People Requiring Assistance during a Disaster.” The national government has encouraged local governments and residents to be prepared for a disaster using the guidelines. Nevertheless, preparations for disasters have not progressed very well. It was in this context that the Great East Japan Earthquake (GEJE) occurred. During the GEJE, immobility raised the risk of death for PRADD due to the tsunami. After the tsunami, there were also PRADD who could not evacuate to shelters because they were anxious about how life would be there. Now many victims live in temporary housing. There will be people who cannot move to temporary housing in the future. It is likely that they will be mainly PRADD. These cases make it clear that immobility causes vulnerability to disasters. I will also provide an example of how mobility causes vulnerability in a disaster – a stranded commuter or person during the GEJE.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document