Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32171236›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Non-participation and attrition in a longitudinal study of civilians exposed to the January 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, France.

Cécile Vuillermoz, Lise Eilin Stene, Lydéric Aubert, Yvon Motreff, Philippe Pirard, Thierry Baubet, Sophie Lesieur, Pierre Chauvin, Stéphanie Vandentorren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Cécile VuillermozCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Centre Maurice Halbwachs (CNRS-UMR8097, EHESS, ENS), F75014, Paris, France. cecile.vuillermoz@inserm.fr.
Lise Eilin SteneNorwegian centre for violence and traumatic stress studies (NKVTS), Oslo, Norway.
Lydéric AubertSanté publique France, Direction des régions, F94415, Saint-Maurice, France.
Yvon MotreffDepartment of Social Epidemiology, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, F75012, Paris, France.
Philippe PirardSanté publique France, Direction des maladies non transmissibles et traumatismes, F94415, Saint-Maurice, France.
Thierry BaubetCESP Inserm 1178, Université Paris 13, Paris, France.
Sophie LesieurDepartment of Social Epidemiology, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, F75012, Paris, France.
Pierre ChauvinDepartment of Social Epidemiology, INSERM, Sorbonne Université, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, F75012, Paris, France.
Stéphanie VandentorrenSanté publique France, Direction des régions, F94415, Saint-Maurice, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNon-participation and attrition are rarely studied despite being important methodological issues when performing post-disaster studies. A longitudinal survey of civilians exposed to the January 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, France, was conducted 6 (Wave 1) and 18 months (Wave 2) after the attacks. We described non-participation in Wave 1 and determined the factors associated with attrition in Wave 2.

methodsMultivariate logistic regression models were used to compare participants in both waves with those who participated in the first wave only. Analyses were performed taking the following factors into account: socio-demographic characteristics, exposure to terror, peri-traumatic reactions, psychological support, perceived social support, impact on work, social and family life, and mental health disorders. Characteristics of new participants in Wave 2 were compared with participants in both waves using a chi-square test.

resultsOf the 390 persons who were eligible to participate in the survey, 190 participated in Wave 1 (participation rate: 49%). The most frequently reported reason for non-participation was to avoid being reminded of the painful event (32%, n = 34/105). In Wave 2, 67 were lost to follow-up, 141 people participated, of whom 123 participated in Wave 1 (re-participation rate: 65%) and 18 were new. Attrition in Wave 2 was associated with socio-demographic characteristics (age, French origin) and location during the attacks, but not with terror exposure or mental health disorders. Compared with those who participated in both waves, new participants declared less social and psychological support since the attacks.

conclusionsAttrition at 6 months was not associated with exposure to terror or mental health disorders, which indicates that any bias in future analyses on IMPACTS on mental health outcomes will be limited. Our findings suggest the importance of adapting similar surveys for people of foreign origin and of improving strategies to avoid attrition of younger people, for example by using social media, peers, and the educational environment. The present study also revealed that a high level of exposure to terror and a lack of social and psychological support after a terrorist event could impede individuals' participation in similar surveys in the short term.

Indexed as

Stress Disorders, Post-TraumaticTerrorismFranceHumansLongitudinal StudiesParisAttritionBias selectionMental health surveyNon-participationTerrorist attack survey

Identifiers

PMID32171236
PMCPMC7071581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.