Background: Natural disasters, pandemics, armed conflict, and economic upheaval inflict lasting harm on mental wellbeing, yet what determines who recovers and who deteriorates remains poorly understood across crisis types.
Objectives: This review maps how crisis exposure shapes wellbeing across four crisis typologies, two surveillance modes (NLP-based and survey/administrative), and three impact directions (favorable, adverse, or mixed).
Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers published in English between 2016 and 2026, applying machine learning, NLP, or deep learning methods to a population exposed to one of the four crisis typologies, and reporting at least one measurable mental health outcome.
Sources of evidence: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore, supplemented by forward and backward citation searching and targeted keyword searches.
Charting methods: Factors were charted using the WHO Commission on Social Determinants of Health framework, adapted for the health system where the frameworkâs coverage is thinnest. They were sorted into tiers, subgroups, and subdimensions with maximum possible fidelity to the original framework.
Results: Across 338 codeable determinants, Intermediary Determinants, particularly psychosocial and behavioral-biological factors, accounted for two-thirds of coded determinants, while NLP-based methods proved most effective at capturing structural and contextual signals (e.g., governance, discourse-based constructs) rather than the clinical burden measures that dominate closer to the individual. Favorable, protective constructs were both rarer and less computationally detected than adverse ones, concentrating almost entirely in mastery, self-concept, coping, and social capital. Forty-five factors were set aside as Outcome Measures because they described prior symptoms, diagnoses, or the study's own outcome construct, with 8 being circular with the study's stated target. Fewer studies examined economic downturns, and conflict studies had almost no NLP presence.
Conclusions: These findings demonstrate this field has matured methodologically in adverse detection but remains structurally limited in reach. This is most evident in armed conflict contexts and in the surveillance of protective, resilience-oriented signals, highlighting the need for digital phenotyping, expanded NLP coverage, and wider adoption of explainable AI methods.