Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T10:00:14.281Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2025

Rana H. Shembesh
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, Libyan International Medical University , Benghazi, Libya
Mohammed S. Beshr*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Sana’a University , Sana’a, Yemen
Aseel A. Almasheeti
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, Libyan International Medical University , Benghazi, Libya
Aisha T. Sheltami
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, Libyan International Medical University , Benghazi, Libya
Ahmed El-Ojeli
Affiliation:
Community Medicine, Libyan International Medical University , Benghazi, Libya
*
Corresponding author: Mohammed S. Beshr; Email: mbeshr2020@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Storm Daniel struck northeastern Libya on September 10, 2023, causing severe infrastructure damage and significant human loss. Derna was the most affected city, with the University of Derna suffering extensive damage and the tragic loss of 37 medical students. Medical students face unique psychological and academic stressors, and tend to have higher rates of psychiatric disorders compared to their peers of the same age. This is the first study to investigate the storm’s psychological impact on medical students at the University of Derna. The study has a cross-sectional design and lasted from February 1 to March 1, 2024. We used the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) to assess anxiety and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to assess depression, along with sociodemographic questions in our questionnaire. We included only active students enrolled in the 7-year undergraduate program at the University of Derna. Statistical tests such as the chi-square test and binary logistic regression were used in the analysis. About 225 students completed the survey. The means and standard deviations for GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores were 9.2 (3.9) and 10.8 (5.0), respectively. The prevalence of anxiety was 42.2% for cases classified as moderate and severe (cut-off ≥10). Depression had a prevalence of 51.1% for cases classified as moderate, moderately severe and severe (cut-off ≥ 10). Suicidal ideation was reported at a rate of 48.9% for “several days” or more and at 16.5% for “more than half of the days” and “nearly every day.” Internal displacement following the storm was significantly associated with both anxiety (p = 0.033) and depression (p = 0.003). However, age, gender, year of study, monthly allowance and residence status (living with family or alone) did not show a statistically significant association with either anxiety or depression (p > 0.05 for all variables). Logistic regression analysis identified gender as the only significant predictor of anxiety (p = 0.041) and internal displacement as the sole significant predictor of depression (p = 0.023). Medical students at the University of Derna reported high rates of anxiety, depression and suicidal ideation following Storm Daniel. Internal displacement was significantly associated with both anxiety and depression. These results highlight the need for targeted interventions to address medical students’ mental health challenges and improve their overall well-being.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, N (%)

Figure 1

Table 2. Classification of anxiety and depression based on GAD-7 and PHQ-9 scores

Figure 2

Figure 1. Classification of depression and anxiety based on the severity.

Figure 3

Table 3. Univariate analysis of medical students’ anxiety after Storm Daniel

Figure 4

Table 4. Logistic regression analysis of the effects of variables on the likelihood of anxiety

Figure 5

Table 5. Univariate analysis of medical students’ depression after Storm Daniel

Figure 6

Table 6. Logistic regression analysis of the effects of variables on the likelihood of depression

Figure 7

Figure 2. Prevalence of suicidal ideation among Derna medical students after Storm Daniel.

Supplementary material: File

Shembesh et al. supplementary material

Shembesh et al. supplementary material
Download Shembesh et al. supplementary material(File)
File 386.2 KB

Author comment: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Dr. Judith Bass, Editor-in-Chief,

We are writing to resubmit our original research article titled “The Psychological Impact of Storm Daniel on Medical Students at the University of Derna in Libya: A Cross-Sectional Study” for consideration for publication in your journal. We previously submitted this paper, and as per your suggestion, we have addressed all the reviewer comments in the revised manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work.

In this revised version, we have responded to each of the reviewers’ comments point by point. We have provided detailed responses to the reviewers‘ comments and have incorporated the necessary changes into the manuscript. For your convenience, we have attached our point-by-point responses for review. The reviewers’ feedback has been invaluable, and it has strengthened the manuscript overall.

The major changes to the manuscript include the addition of a regression analysis on both anxiety and depression. We have expanded the discussion to provide additional context from similar disasters and settings. Furthermore, we have included a summary of the response to the disaster, including whether any mental health services were provided, how the tragic loss of the 37 students was managed, and highlighted the remaining gaps in the response. We have also offered detailed suggestions for interventions and policy improvements.

The manuscript has not been previously published by any means, nor is it under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have carefully reviewed your submission guidelines and policies and ensured that the manuscript adheres to the required formatting and ethical standards. All authors have read and approved the paper to be submitted to your journal. All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

We appreciate your consideration of our revised manuscript and look forward to your decision.

Sincerely,

On behalf of authors,

Mohammed S. Beshr

Review: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This is a well-written research paper. The methodology is clearly articulated and thoroughly analysed, and the results section is informative and insightful.

Overall, the quality of the work is commendable, and I believe this research deserves to be published.

Review: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. It contains valuable insights on an under-researched area. Previous revisions have significantly improved the manuscript. With some minor revisions, I would recommend it for publication. Below are some of my comments to improve the conciseness and clarity of your research with a section-by-section breakdown:

1. Introduction:

The transition between the discussion of natural disasters and Libya’s recovery from the aftermath of the armed conflict could be strengthened. The transition to medical students being a unique demographic from the previous points could be strengthened as well. I also recommend including a brief explanation as to why you chose those specific study tools over others. It would also be helpful to explicitly state the inclusion criteria for participants in the study.

2. Discussion:

Overall, the organization of the discussion section felt relatively staggered. 205-207 could be better suited for the introduction section. 298-302 (touching on university response to loss of students) may be better suited for the introduction. Furthermore, the transition to 307-320 (policy and intervention recommendations) could be improved upon. 321-324 (the need for longitudinal studies) could benefit from a brief discussion on areas of further exploration, or these points could be integrated into the limitations section.

In addition, it would be helpful to discuss whether your findings are consistent with other studies similar in nature. While similar studies were mentioned, this section would benefit from an additional explanatory sentence connecting your findings to theirs.

The discussion of psychological models of PTSD and Crisis Theory is very interesting. Those sections would benefit from a more in-depth connection to the findings from your study.

While highlighted in the introductory sentence, the discussion section could benefit from a more in-depth analysis of how the armed conflict, combined with natural disasters, contributed to the psychological impact on medical students. For example, drawing on cases involving armed conflict and natural disasters impacting mental health outcomes, such as Syria (which was mentioned in the introduction, but the parallels could be clarified). It was suggested in the introduction that armed conflict could exacerbate disaster vulnerability, leading to weakened health infrastructure and poor mental health outcomes. This seemed like an interesting observation that could either be expanded upon or an area for further research.

In terms of the comparisons with findings from similar studies in other regions (i.e. the Middle East), also specify what makes Libya and Storm Daniel unique from those cases. This point could also be an area of further exploration for longitudinal studies or future research.

In terms of the recommendations for interventions, the discussion could benefit from touching upon questions such as: 1) What barriers and challenges would need to be overcome? and 2) What are the current legal, health policy and frameworks in place that require improvements based on your findings?

I encourage you to consider the recommendations to strengthen your manuscript. Overall, I see great potential and am very appreciative of your important work.

Review: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

This is an interesting study that addresses the acute psychological effects of a natural disaster in a politically fragile and under-resourced setting. The authors offer original data from a highly affected population. A few areas of concern.

I would like to know if factors like exposure severity, loss of family/friends, prior trauma, or social support were considered in the study. This will be very important for the relevance of the study. These omitted variables may have stronger explanatory power for psychological distress than demographic factors alone.

The study currently has low explanatory power. The logistic regression models for both anxiety and depression explained only ~10–13% of variance (Nagelkerke R²), indicating that most predictors of mental health outcomes remain unmeasured.

The categorization in the analysis needs to be reassessed. Income brackets (e.g., <75 LYD, 76–150 LYD, >150 LYD) may lack real-world interpretability or purchasing power context, and the meaning of “sufficient income” could vary.

Some variables were significant in univariate analysis but not in logistic regression, suggesting potential multicollinearity or inadequate adjustment. Consider including effect sizes or confidence intervals in the regression results within the main text, not only in tables.

There are several typographical errors in the manuscript. Also, there was the inconsistency in tense. Occasionally the manuscript flips between past and present tenses. Standardize to past tense for completed research.

Table 6 is mislabeled (“Logistic regression analysis of the effects of variables on the likelihood of anxiety”) but discusses depression.

Some repetitive phrasing and awkward sentence structures appear throughout (e.g., “The storm may have compounded these difficulties...” appears redundant given earlier sentences). A language edit would enhance readability.

Recommendation: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R0/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R1/PR7

Comments

Dear Dr. Judith Bass,

We are writing to resubmit our original research article titled “The Psychological Impact of Storm Daniel on Medical Students at the University of Derna in Libya: A Cross-Sectional Study” for consideration for publication in your journal. We have addressed all the reviewer comments in the revised manuscript. We appreciate the opportunity to revise our work.

In this revised version, we have responded to each of the reviewers’ comments point by point. We have provided detailed responses to the reviewers‘ comments and have incorporated the necessary changes into the manuscript. For your convenience, we have attached our point-by-point responses for review. The reviewers’ feedback has been invaluable, and it has strengthened the manuscript overall.

The major changes to the manuscript include the addition of a regression analysis on both anxiety and depression. We have expanded the discussion to provide additional context from similar disasters and settings. Furthermore, we have included a summary of the response to the disaster, including whether any mental health services were provided, and highlighted the remaining gaps in the response. We have also offered detailed suggestions for interventions and policy improvements.

The manuscript has not been previously published by any means, nor is it under consideration for publication elsewhere. We have carefully reviewed your submission guidelines and policies and ensured that the manuscript adheres to the required formatting and ethical standards. All authors have read and approved the paper to be submitted to your journal. All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

We appreciate your consideration of our revised manuscript and look forward to your decision.

Sincerely,

On behalf of authors,

Mohammed S. Beshr,

Review: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for the opportunity to review the paper. There has been significant improvements since the last revision. I’ve provided some minor recommendations for revision below.

On line 78 describing the selection criteria why GAD-7 and PHQ-9, the term “good psychometric properties” was used. What does “good” mean? Use more quantifiable terminology and criterion such as reliability, validity, standardized administration, and normative data. While these psychometric properties are implied in subsequent sentences, they should be explicitly stated here for clarity and cohesion.

The discussion of ethics should be included in both the main body of the paper and the ethical considerations section at the end. It would be helpful for the discussion of ethics, informed consent, and confidentiality to be interwoven throughout the paper. The paper could benefit from an explanation on how the research conducted adheres to ethical guidelines, outlining the consent process and how it was obtained from participants, and the measures taken to protect participants’ identities and ensure safe storage and handling of data. In addition to potential strengths and limitations of the approaches taken. This can be included in the methods section to describe the processes and measures used, in the discussion section as a reflection on challenges encountered during the research and steps taken to address them, and in the conclusion to reinforce the importance of ethical research—which further enhances the credibility of the findings.

There are some minor grammatical and spelling errors in the discussion section that could benefit from further edits. Overall, this paper has great potential.

Recommendation: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R2/PR12

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

No further comments for revision. Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript.

Recommendation: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: The psychological impact of storm Daniel on medical students at the University of Derna in Libya: A cross-sectional study — R2/PR14

Comments

No accompanying comment.