0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters |

Psychological Distress in Workers at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants FREE

Jun Shigemura, MD, PhD; Takeshi Tanigawa, MD, PhD; Isao Saito, MD, PhD; Soichiro Nomura, MD, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Department of Psychiatry, National Defense Medical College, Saitama, Japan (Drs Shigemura and Nomura); and Department of Public Health, Ehime University Graduate School of Medicine, Ehime, Japan (Drs Tanigawa [tt9178tt9178@gmail.com] and Saito).


Letters Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Senior Editor.

More Author Information
JAMA. 2012;308(7):667-669. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.9699.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To the Editor: A magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, triggered plant explosions and a nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The nearby Daini nuclear power plant also experienced damage but remained intact. Studies after the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl1 suggest nuclear power plant workers are at risk for general psychological distress, including posttraumatic stress response (PTSR). We examined the psychological status of Fukushima workers 2 to 3 months after the disaster.

Following approval by the ethics committees of Ehime University and National Defense Medical College, we recruited all full-time nuclear power plant workers from the Daiichi (n = 1053) and Daini (n = 707) plants in May and June 2011. Written informed consent was obtained.

Using a self-report questionnaire, we assessed sociodemographic characteristics and disaster-related experiences (Table 1; coded dichotomously as “yes” or “no”), including discrimination/slurs (sabetsu/chuushou) because the electric company was criticized for their disaster response and the workers have been targets of discrimination.2 General psychological distress was evaluated using the K6 scale (Japanese version),3 including items on feeling nervous, hopeless, restless/fidgety, depressed, everything was an effort, and worthless in the last 30 days. Scores ranged from 0 to 24, with 13 or higher indicating high distress.3 PTSR was assessed by the Japanese version of the Impact of Event Scale Revised (IES-R-J), a 22-item scale including PTSR domains of intrusion, avoidance/numbing, and hyperarousal.4 Scores ranged from 0 to 88, with 25 or higher indicating high PTSR.4 Cronbach α was high for K6 (0.88) and IES-R-J (0.95).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Participant Characteristics, General Psychological Distress (GPD), and Posttraumatic Stress Responses (PTSR)

Two-tailed χ2 tests were performed to evaluate the difference in proportions. Significant independent variables from bivariate analysis were considered potential factors of high general psychological distress and PTSR, and were entered in the multivariable logistic regression model (forced entry method). SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute) was used. A 2-sided P < .05 was used to indicate significance.

Of 1760 eligible workers, 1495 (85%) participated (Daiichi: n = 885 [84%]; Daini: n = 610 [86%]). Compared with Daini workers, Daiichi workers were more often exposed to disaster-related stressors (Table 1). Experiencing discrimination or slurs was not statistically significantly different between groups (14% vs 11%, P = .08).

Daiichi workers had significantly higher rates of psychological distress (n = 412; 47%; 95% CI, 43%-50%; vs n = 226; 37%; 95% CI, 33%-41%; P < .001) and PTSR (n = 261; 30%; 95% CI, 27%-33%; vs n = 117; 19%; 95% CI, 16%-22%; P < .001) (Table 1). For both groups, discrimination or slurs were associated with high psychological distress (Daiichi: adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.06; 95% CI, 1.34-3.16; vs Daini: AOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.63-5.17) and high PTSR (Daiichi: AOR, 2.17; 95% CI, 1.43-3.30; vs Daini: AOR, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.47-4.96) (Table 2). Other significant associations in both groups included tsunami evacuation and major property loss with psychological distress and preexisting illness and major property loss with PTSR.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Factors Associated With High General Psychological Distress (GPD) and High Posttraumatic Stress Responses (PTSR)

We found that general psychological distress and PTSR were common in nuclear plant workers 2 to 3 months after the disaster. The prevalence was higher than in other studies (12.5% with severe or very severe psychological impairment in a review of 24 studies),5 possibly due to the complexity of their experience. Higher rates were found among workers of Daiichi than Daini, which is concordant with their higher exposure to disaster-related stressors.

This is the first study to our knowledge to explore discrimination as a factor in postdisaster mental health. Experiencing discrimination was associated with both general psychological distress and PTSR. A similar phenomenon was observed in Vietnam War veterans; along with combat exposure, insufficient societal support and societal rejection upon homecoming were associated with posttraumatic stress disorder.6

Several limitations warrant discussion. Our report was cross-sectional, with neither baseline measures nor long-term outcomes. The responses were self-reported and no comparison group was available. We had no information on specific previous physical/mental illness; educational, marital, or socioeconomic status; or precise irradiation exposure, although irradiation symptoms were not reported.

Author Contributions: Drs Shigemura and Tanigawa had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Shigemura, Tanigawa, Nomura.

Acquisition of data: Shigemura, Tanigawa.

Analysis and interpretation of data: Shigemura, Tanigawa, Saito.

Drafting of the manuscript: Shigemura, Tanigawa, Saito.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Shigemura, Tanigawa, Nomura.

Statistical analysis: Shigemura, Tanigawa, Saito.

Obtained funding: Shigemura, Tanigawa, Nomura.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Tanigawa.

Study supervision: Tanigawa, Nomura.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Drs Shigemura and Nomura provided voluntary mental health assistance to Tokyo Electric Company Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plant employees according to official requests from Daini and a Japanese government cabinet order to the Ministry of Defense. Dr Tanigawa is a Daini part-time occupational physician. Dr Saito reported no conflict of interest disclosures.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by Health and Labour Sciences Research Grants (Research on Occupational Safety and Health H24-001) from the Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare of Japan.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding organization had no role in the design and conduct of the study; in the collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the position or policy of Tokyo Electric Company, Ehime University, National Defense Medical College, the Ministry of Defense, or the Japanese government.

Additional Contributions: We thank Tomoko Yamamoto, RN (Tokyo Electric Company [TEPCO] Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant), the medical team employees of Daiichi and Daini plants, and Yoshiko Kage (TEPCO R&D Center) for their invaluable cooperation. We also thank the plant workers for their study participation and dedicated recovery efforts. No compensation was received for their services.

Bromet EJ, Havenaar JM, Guey LT. A 25 year retrospective review of the psychological consequences of the Chernobyl accident.  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2011;23(4):297-305
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shigemura J, Tanigawa T, Nomura S. Support challenges of disaster workers and supporters following the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake [in Japanese with English abstract].  Japan J Trauma Stress. 2011;9(2):141-147
Sakurai K, Nishi A, Kondo K, Yanagida K, Kawakami N. Screening performance of K6/K10 and other screening instruments for mood and anxiety disorders in Japan.  Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2011;65(5):434-441
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Asukai N, Kato H, Kawamura N,  et al.  Reliability and validity of the Japanese-language version of the impact of event scale-revised (IES-R-J): four studies of different traumatic events.  J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190(3):175-182
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Norris FH, Friedman MJ, Watson PJ, Byrne CM, Diaz E, Kaniasty K. 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I, an empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981-2001.  Psychiatry. 2002;65(3):207-239
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fontana A, Rosenheck R. Posttraumatic stress disorder among Vietnam Theater Veterans: a causal model of etiology in a community sample.  J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994;182(12):677-684
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Participant Characteristics, General Psychological Distress (GPD), and Posttraumatic Stress Responses (PTSR)
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Factors Associated With High General Psychological Distress (GPD) and High Posttraumatic Stress Responses (PTSR)

References

Bromet EJ, Havenaar JM, Guey LT. A 25 year retrospective review of the psychological consequences of the Chernobyl accident.  Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2011;23(4):297-305
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shigemura J, Tanigawa T, Nomura S. Support challenges of disaster workers and supporters following the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake [in Japanese with English abstract].  Japan J Trauma Stress. 2011;9(2):141-147
Sakurai K, Nishi A, Kondo K, Yanagida K, Kawakami N. Screening performance of K6/K10 and other screening instruments for mood and anxiety disorders in Japan.  Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2011;65(5):434-441
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Asukai N, Kato H, Kawamura N,  et al.  Reliability and validity of the Japanese-language version of the impact of event scale-revised (IES-R-J): four studies of different traumatic events.  J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190(3):175-182
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Norris FH, Friedman MJ, Watson PJ, Byrne CM, Diaz E, Kaniasty K. 60,000 disaster victims speak: Part I, an empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981-2001.  Psychiatry. 2002;65(3):207-239
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Fontana A, Rosenheck R. Posttraumatic stress disorder among Vietnam Theater Veterans: a causal model of etiology in a community sample.  J Nerv Ment Dis. 1994;182(12):677-684
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Letters

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 7

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles