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

Patients' perspectives of barriers and facilitators to accessing support through primary care for common mental health problems in England: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Common mental disorders (CMDs) are prevalent throughout the population. Psychological therapy is often sought via primary care; however, equitable access is not commonplace. This review aims to investigate the barriers and facilitators adults experiencing CMDs perceive when accessing evidence-based psychological treatment in England.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review with meta-synthesis was conducted (PROSPERO CRD42020227039). Seven electronic databases were searched for papers from 2008 to October 2022.

RESULTS

Searches identified 30 studies from which three themes were developed with seven subthemes. Stigma and patients' perceptions and understandings of CMDs impacted their help-seeking decision-making and engagement with services. This meant that services were not used as a first resort for help-seeking. Upon reaching services, patients appeared to perceive primary care as not prioritising mental health problems, nor as being the place where they would be supported, particularly as healthcare professionals did not appear to know about CMDs and therapy was seen as difficult to access. The interaction between healthcare professional and patients was seen as pivotal to whether patients accessed support or not.

LIMITATIONS

The review is limited to research conducted within England. Additionally, it only explores access barriers prior to treatment experiences.

CONCLUSION

Knowledge, attitudinal, systemic and relational barriers and facilitators were identified. Future research should focus on developing stigma reduction initiatives. Clinical implications include provision of standardised training across primary care HCP (healthcare professionals).

Psychosocial care responses to terrorist attacks: a country case study of Norway, France and Belgium

Background

The international terrorism threat urges societies to invest in the planning and organization of psychosocial care. With the aim to contribute to cross-national learning, this study describes the content, target populations and providers of psychosocial care to civilians after terrorist attacks in Norway, France and Belgium.

Methods

We identified and reviewed pre- and post-attack policy documents, guidelines, reports and other relevant grey literature addressing the psychosocial care response to terrorist attacks in Oslo/Utøya, Norway on 22 July 2011; in Paris, France on 13 November 2015; and in Brussels, Belgium on 22 March 2016.

Results

In Norway, there was a primary care based approach with multidisciplinary crisis teams in the local municipalities. In response to the terrorist attacks, there were proactive follow-up programs within primary care and occupational health services with screenings of target groups throughout a year. In France, there was a national network of specialized emergency psychosocial units primarily consisting of psychiatrists, psychologists and psychiatric nurses organized by the regional health agencies. They provided psychological support the first month including guidance for long-term healthcare, but there were no systematic screening programs after the acute phase. In Belgium, there were psychosocial intervention networks in the local municipalities, yet the acute psychosocial care was coordinated at a federal level. A reception centre was organized to provide acute psychosocial care, but there were no reported public long-term psychosocial care initiatives in response to the attacks.

Conclusions

Psychosocial care responses, especially long-term follow-up activities, differed substantially between countries. Models for registration of affected individuals, monitoring of their health and continuous evaluation of countries’ psychosocial care provision incorporated in international guidelines may strengthen public health responses to mass-casualty incidents.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07691-2.

People's experiences of distress and psychosocial care following a terrorist attack: interviews with survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017

BACKGROUND

Distress after major incidents is widespread among survivors. The great majority do not meet the criteria for mental health disorders and rely on psychosocial care provided by their informal networks and official response services. There is a need to better understand their experiences of distress and psychosocial care needs.

AIMS

The aims of our study were to enhance understanding of the experience of distress among people present at the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017, identify their experiences of psychosocial care after the incident and learn how to better deliver and target effective psychosocial care following major incidents.

METHOD

We conducted a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 18 physically non-injured survivors of the Manchester Arena attack, who registered with the NHS Manchester Resilience Hub.

RESULTS

Distress was ubiquitous, with long-lasting health and social consequences. Initial reluctance to seek help from services was also common. Early and open access to authoritative sources of information and emotional support, and organised events for survivors, were viewed as helpful interventions. Inappropriate forms of psychosocial and mental healthcare were common and potent stressors that affected coping and recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper extends our understanding of how people react to major events. Provision for the large group of people who are distressed and require psychosocial care may be inadequate after many incidents. There is a substantial agenda for developing awareness of people's needs for psychosocial interventions, and training practitioners to deliver them. The findings have substantial implications for policy and service design.

Anxiety, Depression and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder after Terrorist Attacks: A General Review of the Literature

Terrorism, though not well-defined, is a violent act that has been shown to have longstanding effects on the mental health of those who witness it. The aim of this general literature review is to explore the effect that terrorism has on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder (MDD) and anxiety disorders, as well as the bio-psycho-social determinants that mediate its impact. This paper describes the prevalence, risk factors, protective factors, common presentations and interventions identified for PTSD, depression and anxiety disorders occurring following terrorist attacks. We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE using a number of keywords detailed below. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, we kept 80 articles, which we summarized in tabular form. A majority of articles found detailed the impact of terrorism on PTSD, and took place in a Western, mainly American setting. The main factors that impacted the presentation of mental illness include gender, ethnicity, social supports, socioeconomic status, level of preparedness, level of exposure, pre-existing trauma and mental illness, and subsequent life stressors. The main intervention detailed in this article as showing evidence post-terrorism is trauma-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy. This study highlights the importance of this topic, and in particular, its implications for public health policy and practice.

Cost-effectiveness of 'screen-and-treat' interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder following major incidents

OBJECTIVES

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is commonly experienced in the aftermath of major incidents such as terrorism and pandemics. Well-established principles of response include effective and scalable treatment for individuals affected by PTSD. In England, such responses have combined proactive outreach, screening and evidence-based interventions (a 'screen-and-treat' approach), but little is known about its cost-effectiveness. The objective of this paper is to report the first systematic attempt to assess the cost-effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS

A decision modelling analysis was undertaken to estimate the costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from a screen-and-treat approach compared with treatment-as-usual, the latter involving identification of PTSD by general practitioners and referral to psychological therapy services. Model input variables were drawn from relevant empirical studies in the context of terrorism and the unit costs of health and social care in England. The model was run over a 5-year time horizon for a hypothetical cohort of 1000 exposed adults from the perspective of the National Health Service and Personal Social Services in England.

RESULTS

The incremental cost per QALY gained was £7931. This would be considered cost-effective 88% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained, the threshold associated with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in England. Sensitivity analysis confirmed this result was robust.

CONCLUSIONS

A screen-and-treat approach for identifying and treating PTSD in adults following terrorist attacks appears cost-effective in England compared with treatment-as-usual through conventional primary care routes. Although this finding was in the context of terrorism, the implications might be translatable into other major incident-related scenarios including the current COVID-19 pandemic.