4.5 Article

Disaster-related trauma and blood pressure among young children: a follow-up study after Great East Japan earthquake

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 42, 期 8, 页码 1215-1222

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41440-019-0250-6

关键词

Disaster; Blood pressure; Children; Trauma; Earthquake

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [H24-jisedai-shitei-007]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The 11 March 2011 earthquake and tsunami in Japan resulted in similar to 19,000 lost lives and the displacement of nearly a quarter million people owing to extensive property damage and evacuation from the nuclear meltdown in Fukushima. We sought to prospectively examine whether exposure to disaster-related trauma affected blood pressure levels among young children. We sampled children in three affected prefectures (Miyagi, Fukushima, Iwate) and one unaffected prefecture (Mie). The participants (mean age 6.6 years) and their caregivers answered a baseline survey (N = 320) and a follow-up survey 4 years after the earthquake (N = 227, follow-up rate 71%). Disaster-related trauma was assessed at the baseline, and blood pressure measurements were taken at the follow-up. We converted blood pressure data into age/sex/height-specific z-scores. In linear regression models, we controlled for body mass index, income, age, sex, and housing situation (living in the same house as before the disaster, in a shelter, or in a new house). The number of traumatic experiences was related to diastolic blood pressure in a dose-dependent manner but was not related to systolic blood pressure. Children reporting four or more traumatic experiences had marginally significant elevated diastolic blood pressure (beta = 0.43, p = 0.059). Among specific types of disaster trauma, witnessing a fire was significantly related to higher diastolic blood pressure (beta = 0.60, p = 0.009). In conclusion, disaster-related trauma was associated with higher diastolic blood pressure among young children 4 years after the traumatic events.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据