Human stampedes are a major cause of mortality in mass gatherings, but they have received limited scientific attention. While the number of publications has increased, there is no recent review of new study results. This study compiles and reviews available literature on stampedes, their prevention, preparedness, and response. A search for peer-reviewed and grey literature in PubMed (National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health; Bethesda, Maryland USA), Google Scholar (Google Inc.; Mountain View, California USA), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters; New York, New York USA), the World Health Organization Library Database (WHOLIS; World Health Organization; Geneva, Switzerland), and ReliefWeb (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; Geneva, Switzerland) was conducted, and papers were selected according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Included items were read and results were compiled and summarized. A total of 64 publications were included, of which, 34 were published between 2013-2016. The most studied events were Germany’s Love Parade stampede in 2010 (Duisburg, Germany; n = 6) and the United Kingdom (UK) Hillsborough Stadium stampede in 1989 (Sheffield, England; n = 4). Conflicting definitions of human stampedes were found. The common belief that they result from an irrational and panicking crowd has progressively been replaced by studies suggesting that successive systemic failures are main underlying causes. There is a lack of systematic reporting, making news reports often the only source available. Prevention measures are mainly related to crowd management and venue design, but their effectiveness has not been studied. Drills are recommended in the preparedness phase to improve coordination and communication. Delay in decisions, poor triage, or loss of medical records are common problems in the response, which may worsen the outcome. Stampedes are complex phenomenon that remain incompletely understood, hampering formulation of evidence-based strategies for their prevention and management. Documentation comes mostly from high-profile events and findings are difficult to extrapolate to other settings. More research from different disciplines is warranted to address these gaps in order to prevent and mitigate future events. A start would be to decide on a common definition of stampedes. Moitinho de Almeida M , von Schreeb J . Human stampedes: an updated review of current literature. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(1):82–88.

The effects of disasters and conflicts are widespread and heavily studied. While attention to disasters' impacts on mental health is growing, mental health effects are not well understood due to inconsistencies in measurement. The purpose of this study is to review mental health assessment tools and their use in populations affected by disasters and conflicts. Tools that assess posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, substance use disorder, and general mental health were examined. This review began with a search for assessment tools in PubMed, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar. Next, validation studies for the tools were obtained through snowball sampling. A final search was conducted for scientific studies using the selected tools in humanitarian settings to collect the data for analysis. The benefits and limitations described for each tool were compiled into a complete table. Twelve assessment tools were included, with 88 studies using them. The primary findings indicate that half of the studies used the Impact of Events Scale-Revised. The most common limitation discussed is that self-report tools inaccurately estimate the prevalence of mental health problems. This inaccuracy is further exacerbated by a lack of cultural appropriateness of the tools, as many are developed for Western contexts. It is recommended that researchers and humanitarian workers reflect on the effectiveness of the mental health assessment tool they use to accurately represent the populations under study in emergency settings. In addition, mental health assessment should be coupled with action.

This paper provides a comprehensive set of methodologies that have been used in the literature to give a monetary value to the human impact in a natural disaster setting. Four databases were searched for relevant published and gray literature documents with a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty-seven studies that quantified the value of a statistical life in a disaster setting or discussed methodologies of estimating value of life were included. Analysis highlighted the complexity and variability of methods and estimations of values of statistical life. No single method to estimate the value of a statistical life is universally agreed upon, although stated preference methods seem to be the preferred approach. The value of one life varies significantly ranging from USD 143,000 to 15 million. While an overwhelming majority of studies concern high-income countries, most disaster casualties are observed in low- and middle-income countries. Data on the human impact of disasters are usually available in disasters databases. However, lost lives are not traditionally translated into monetary terms. Therefore, the full financial cost of disasters has rarely been evaluated. More research is needed to utilize the value of life estimates in order to guide policymakers in preparedness and mitigation policies.

In 2015, an earthquake killing 9,000 and injuring 22,000 people hit Nepal. The Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital (TUTH), a reference tertiary hospital, was operational immediately after the earthquake. We studied the profile of earthquake victims admitted in TUTH and assessed what factors could influence hospital length of stay. An earthquake victim dataset was created based on patient records, with information on sex, age, date of admission and discharge, diagnosis, and surgical intervention. We performed an initial descriptive overview of the earthquake victims followed by a time-to-event analysis to compare length of hospital stay in different groups, using log rank test and cox regression to calculate Hazard Ratios. There were in total 501 admitted victims, with the peak of admissions occurring on the fifth day after the earthquake. About 89% had injury as main diagnosis, mostly in lower limbs, and 66% of all injuries were fractures. Nearly 69% of all patients underwent surgery. The median length of hospital stay was 10 days. Lower limb and trunk injuries had longer hospital stays than injuries in the head and neck (HR = 0.68, p = 0.009, and HR = 0.62 p = 0.005, respectively). Plastic surgeries had longer hospital stays than orthopaedic surgeries (HR = 0.57 p = 0.006). Having a crush injury and undergoing an amputation also increased time to discharge (HR = 0.57, p = 0.013, and HR = 0.65 p = 0.045 respectively). Hospital stay was particularly long in this sample in comparison to other studies on earthquake victims, indirectly indicating the high burden TUTH had to bear to treat these patients. To strengthen resilience, tertiary hospitals should have preparedness plans to cope with a large influx of injured patients after a large-scale disaster, in particular for the initial days when there is limited external aid.