Responding to the mental health consequences of the 2015–2016 terrorist attacks in Tunisia,Paris and Brussels: implementation and treatment experiences in the United Kingdom

Abstract

Objectives

To explore whether the Screen and Treat Programme to support United Kingdom citizens potentially affected by terrorist attacks in Tunisia (2015), Paris (2015) and Brussels (2016) was effective in identifying and referring people to mental health services, to examine the programme’s acceptability to users and to understand how agencies involved worked together.

Methods

Individuals offered screening by the programme (n = 529) were invited to participate in the study and were sent a questionnaire. Follow-up interviews were conducted with questionnaire respondents who consented and with employees of agencies involved in the programme’s planning and delivery. Seventy-seven people affected by the attacks completed questionnaires, 35 of those were also interviewed, and 1 further person only participated in an interview. Eleven people from agencies organizing and delivering the programme and five clinician-managers were also interviewed.

Results

Most service users said the attacks had a major impact on their lives. Many reported anxiety, depression, difficulty going out or travelling, sleep problems, panic attacks, flashbacks and hyper-vigilance. A third had reduced their working hours and a similar proportion had taken sick leave. Two-thirds sought help from their General Practitioner (GP) before being contacted by the programme, but almost all thought their GP had not been helpful in dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or referring to appropriate care. Several people were prescribed psychotropic medication; only a few were referred to mental health professionals. Many participants used help offered by organizations external to National Health Service, with mixed experiences. Waiting times for treatment varied from no delay to a few months. Most interviewees thought the programme should have started sooner and provided more information about sources of support. Most users found treatment received via the programme helpful. Professionals involved in organizing and delivering the programme thought that bureaucratic delays in setting it up were key limitations on effectiveness. Clinician interviewees thought an outreach approach was needed to identify at-risk individuals.

Conclusions

Users who took part in the programme were satisfied with their treatment, although many thought it should have been offered sooner. Funding and data sharing between agencies were the main barriers to timely contact with affected individuals. Self-referral, GP identification of PTSD and GP referral to appropriate care were regarded as ineffective, suggesting that people affected by similar future incidents should be supported better and assisted more promptly to access treatment.

Keywords

health services mental health psychiatry psychology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Neria

Nandi

Galea

Post‐traumatic stress disorder following disasters: a systematic review. Psychol Med 2008; 38: 467–480.

Boscarino

Galea

Ahern

, et al. Utilization of mental health services following the September 11th terrorist attacks in Manhattan, NYC. Int J Emerg Ment Health 2002; 4: 143–155.

Ehlers

Gene-Cos

Perrin

Low recognition of posttraumatic stress disorder in primary care. London J Prim Care (Abingdon) 2009; 2: 36–42.

Brewin

Scragg

Robertson

, et al. Promoting mental health following the London bombings: a screen and treat approach. J Traum Stress 2008; 21: 3–8.

Vandentorren

Pirard

Sanna

, et al. Healthcare provision and the psychological, somatic and social impact on people involved in the terror attacks in January 2015 in Paris: cohort study. Br J Psychiatry 2018; 212: 207–214.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)/Euro-Atlantic Partnership Committee (EAPC). Annex 1 to APC(JMC)N(2008)0038. Psychosocial care for people affected by disasters and major incidents: a model for designing, delivering and managing psychosocial services for people involved in major incidents, conflict, disasters and terrorism. Brussels: NATO/EAPC, 2009.

Bisson

Tavakoly

Witteveen

, et al. TENTS guidelines: development of post-disaster psychosocial care guidelines through a Delphi process. Br J Psychiatry 2010; 196: 69–74.

Department of Health, Emergency Preparedness Division. NHS emergency planning guidance: planning for the psychosocial and mental health care of people affected by major incidents and disasters: Interim national strategic guidance. London: Department of Health, 2009.

Te Brake

Dückers

De Vries

, et al. Early psychosocial interventions after disasters, terrorism, and other shocking events: guideline development. Nurs Health Sci 2009; 11: 336–343.

10.

Te Brake

Dückers

Early psychosocial interventions after disasters, terrorism and other shocking events: is there a gap between norms and practice in Europe?

Eur J Psychotraumatol 2013; 4. doi: 10.3402/ejpt.v4i0.19093.

11.

Brewin

Rose

Andrews

, et al. Brief screening instrument for post-traumatic stress disorder. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 181: 158–162.

12.

Kroenke

Spitzer

Williams

JB.

The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16: 606–613.

13.

Bush

Kivlahan

McDonell

, et al.; for the Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project ACQUIP. The AUDIT Alcohol Consumption Questions (AUDIT-C): an effective brief screening test for problem drinking. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 1789–1795.

14.

Gobin

Rubin

Albert

, et al. Outcomes of mental health screening for United Kingdom Nationals affected by the 2015–2016 terrorist attacks in Tunisia, Paris, and Brussels. J Traum Stress 2018; 31: 471–479.

15.

Beecham

Knapp

Costing psychiatric interventions. In: Thornicroft

(ed) Measuring mental health needs. 2nd ed. Bideford: Gaskell, 2001, pp. 200–224.

16.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Post-traumatic stress disorder: management. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2005.

17.

Brewin

Fuchkan

Huntley

Evaluation of the NHS trauma response to the London bombings. Final report to the department of health forensic mental health R & D programme. London: University College London, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, 2009.

18.

Brewin

Fuchkan

Huntley

, et al. Outreach and screening following the 2005 London bombings: usage and outcomes. Psychol Med 2010; 40: 2049–2057.

19.

Fuchkan

Burden of posttraumatic stress disorder – health, social and economic consequences of exposure to the 2005 London bombings. PhD Thesis. London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 2015.

20.

King

Doing template analysis. In Symon

Cassell

(eds) Qualitative organizational research: core methods and current challenges. London: Sage, 2012, pp. 426–450.

21.

National Audit Office. Review of the experiences of United Kingdom Nationals affected by the East Indian Ocean Tsunami, November 2006, www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/Review_Tsunami_Experiences.pdf (accessed 20 February 2017).