Does the Type of Temporary Housing Make a Difference in Social Participation and Health for Evacuees of the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami? A Cross-Sectional Study

• Published in: Journal of epidemiology 2019-10, Vol.29 (10), p.391-398
• Main Authors: Kusama, Taro, Aida, Jun, Sugiyama, Kemmyo, Matsuyama, Yusuke, Koyama, Shihoko, Sato, Yukihiro, Yamamoto, Takafumi, Igarashi, Ayaka, Tsuboya, Toru, Osaka, Ken
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cross-sectional studies; Dependent variables; Earthquakes; evacuation; Expatriates; Health; health condition; Independent variables; Original; Polls & surveys; Prefabricated buildings; Prefabrication; Regression analysis; Regression models; Seismic activity; Social Epidemiology; Social factors; Social integration; social participation; the Great East Japan Earthquake population attributable fraction; Tsunamis
• ISSN: 0917-5040; 1349-9092
• DOI: 10.2188/jea.JE20180080

Background: Although the majority of survivors of the huge Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami evacuated to two types of temporary housings, prefabricated housing and rented housing, health effects of these different environments were unclear. We examined whether prevalent social participation in prefabricated housing brought larger health benefits than in rented housing using the largest health survey data of the disaster survivors. Methods: This cross-sectional study used a 2012 survey by the Miyagi Prefectural Government, in which almost all of evacuees were targeted (response rate: 61.6%). Self-rated health (SRH) and psychological distress measured via K6 score were the dependent variables, and social participation was the independent variable. Odds ratios of the social participation on health variables were estimated using logistic regression models. To assess the contribution of social participation, the population attributable fraction (PAF) was estimated. Results: The participants lived in prefabricated and rented housing numbered 19,726 and 28,270, respectively. Participants in prefabricated housing had poorer SRH and K6 than those in rented housing. The proportions of participants engaging in social participation of prefabricated and rented housing were 38.2% and 15.4%, respectively. The absence of social participation was significantly associated with poor SRH and K6 among participants in both housing types. The PAFs of social participation with good SRH were 39.5% in prefabricated housing and 14.4% in rented housing. For K6, the PAFs were 47.1% and 19.5% in prefabricated and rented housing, respectively. Conclusion: Compared to the residents in rented housing, residents in prefabricated housing had more frequent opportunities for social participation, which was associated with larger health benefits.