This phenomenological qualitative study examines what it was actually like to deliver health care in the February 6, 2023 Türkiye earthquake zone, not only “during the response,” but across the full deployment arc: the time before reaching the region, the experience while working in the disaster area, and the period after returning home and re-entering routine work (Amarat et al., 2026). The authors interviewed 18 health care workers (10 physicians, 5 nurses, 3 UMKE members) selected via maximum variation sampling to cover all 11 affected provinces, with both volunteers (n=8) and assigned staff (n=10); interviews lasted 27–80 minutes (mean 42), were conducted face-to-face or online, and were thematically analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s approach, with a reported inter-coder agreement of 0.85 via Jaccard coefficient (Amarat et al., 2026).
The results are organized around three periods and eight themes (32 categories), and the key analytic contribution is that emotional strain is not an “in-zone only” phenomenon: it appears before deployment, intensifies and changes form in the field, and persists after returning, while the most damaging organizational failures cluster especially in the pre-arrival and in-zone periods (Amarat et al., 2026). In the pre-arrival phase, two themes dominate. First, emotional symptoms include uneasiness, panic-like readiness, anxiety, and fear, often triggered by uncertainty and media exposure rather than direct aftershock risk (Amarat et al., 2026). Second, general organization problems center on lack of clear information about the journey and mission parameters, uncertainty about where and how long to serve, ambiguity about what to bring, unclear duty location and workplace, and transportation coordination gaps. Importantly, these are not described as minor inconveniences; they are portrayed as drivers of anticipatory stress and hurried, low-quality preparation, meaning that response effectiveness is already compromised before personnel arrive on site (Amarat et al., 2026).
Inside the earthquake zone, the study maps experience into six themes that jointly show how human limits, basic survival conditions, and system coordination collide. Physical symptoms are straightforward but severe: profound tiredness and lack of sleep, attributed to overwhelming patient loads, continuous duties, and repeated aftershocks that disrupt rest (Amarat et al., 2026). Emotional symptoms in-zone shift from pre-arrival fear of the unknown to fear anchored in ongoing seismic risk and unsafe infrastructure; shock and helplessness appear after witnessing the city’s destruction and survivors’ stories, sadness accumulates through repeated exposure, yet a distinct positive affect also emerges: satisfaction from being able to provide crucial services under extreme conditions (Amarat et al., 2026). This “satisfaction” finding is not framed as emotional immunity; rather, it co-exists with distress, suggesting that meaning and burden can be simultaneous in disaster work, and that morale narratives should not be mistaken for psychological safety.
Basic needs are treated as operational determinants, not side notes. Participants describe sheltering problems (including reliance on personal tents), inconsistent heating conditions, and most consistently, difficulty finding hygienic toilet and bathing environments, which affects recovery, infection risk, and dignity for staff working long shifts (Amarat et al., 2026). The “health care organization” theme then explains why demand and workforce do not meet efficiently: inadequate orientation on arrival and weak handover processes, shortages and maldistribution of allied health personnel, malfunctioning or absent recording systems that obstruct documentation, and uneven distribution of health care workers that creates crowding in some hospitals and scarcity in others (Amarat et al., 2026). The study draws a sharp contrast here: while staffing distribution and coordination fail, medical supplies are generally reported as adequate, and inter-facility transfer of referred patients is described as quick and smooth. This matters analytically because it suggests the bottleneck is not only “resource scarcity,” but allocation, onboarding, and information flow under crisis conditions (Amarat et al., 2026).
Within “health care delivery,” participants repeatedly emphasize sacrifice, solidarity, and collaboration, describing a joint effort between staff and survivors that keeps care moving even when formal systems lag (Amarat et al., 2026). At the same time, patient overload is described as a recurring operational reality, and the paper implicitly connects this overload to the earlier organizational theme: when staff distribution is unbalanced and orientation is weak, throughput collapses into crowding rather than coordinated surge capacity (Amarat et al., 2026). Finally, “other services” captures supportive provisions such as food allowance and clothing support, indicating that some logistical assistance exists, but it is not reliably sufficient to offset deficits in shelter, hygiene, and structured onboarding.
Post-departure experiences are not portrayed as “closure,” but as a continuation phase with its own risks. Emotional symptoms include anxiety, sadness, guilt (often tied to leaving while colleagues remain or feeling they could have done more), alongside satisfaction and feeling proud of having helped (Amarat et al., 2026). The “return to routine work” theme is especially revealing for workforce sustainability: participants report persistent tiredness, limited chance to rest, an explicit need for psychological support, and a form of comparative gratitude when routine conditions are contrasted with disaster-zone hardship (Amarat et al., 2026). The practical implication is that post-deployment is not merely a decompression window; it is a period where moral injury, exhaustion, and delayed stress reactions may concentrate, and where institutions can either retain resilience or amplify burnout depending on support availability.
The authors conclude with actionable system recommendations that directly match the failure points surfaced by participants: systematic pre-arrival briefings to clarify duty scope, duration, and logistics; structured orientation and handover on arrival; more equitable staff deployment aligned with regional needs; and continuous psychological support before, during, and after service (Amarat et al., 2026). They also acknowledge limitations, including exclusion of other professional groups and the influence of Türkiye’s cultural and regulatory context on transferability, while arguing that the phase-based design and inclusion of multiple professions improves the completeness of disaster workforce understanding (Amarat et al., 2026).
Reference: Amarat, M., Güneş, D., Güler, P. B., & Aydın, G. Z. (2026). A qualitative study on the experiences of health care workers providing health care services in the earthquake zone: The case of Türkiye earthquake on February 6, 2023. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 20, e18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2025.10298