Cited by 230Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchPublic Relations and Crisis CommunicationDisaster Management and Resilience

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Disaster Media Coverage and Psychological Outcomes: Descriptive Findings in the Extant Research

Open access

Abstract

This review of the literature on disaster media coverage describes the events, samples, and forms of media coverage (television, newspapers, radio, internet) studied and examines the association between media consumption and psychological outcomes. A total of 36 studies representing both man-made and natural events met criteria for review in this analysis. Most studies examined disaster television viewing in the context of terrorism and explored a range of outcomes including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caseness and posttraumatic stress (PTS), depression, anxiety, stress reactions, and substance use. There is good evidence establishing a relationship between disaster television viewing and various psychological outcomes, especially PTSD caseness and PTS, but studies are too few to draw definitive conclusions about the other forms of media coverage that have been examined. As media technology continues to advance, future research is needed to investigate these additional media forms especially newer forms such as social media.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11920-014-0464-x

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pfefferbaum, B., Newman, E., Nelson, S. D., Nitiéma, P., Pfefferbaum, R. L., & Rahman, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (US)
  • University of Tulsa (US)
  • Phoenix College (US)
Corresponding author
Pfefferbaum, Betty
Venue
Current Psychiatry Reports
Published
2014-07-27
Volume
16
Issue
9
Pages
464-464
ISSN
  • 1523-3812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-1645
OpenAlex
W2148450146
Cited by
230
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1
FWCI
20.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Psychiatry Reports (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Oklahoma
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R25MH070569)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Public Relations and Crisis Communication
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disaster Management and Resilience
Keywords
post-traumatic stress disorder, post-traumatic stress, psychological outcomes, terrorism, media use, depression, anxiety, substance use, natural disasters, man-made disasters, social media
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Mental Disorders, Disasters, Fear, Humans, Mass Media, Stress, Psychological

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review