Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35331222›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

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

Lise Eilin Stene, Cécile Vuillermoz, Roel Van Overmeire, Johan Bilsen, Michel Dückers, Lisa Govasli Nilsen, Stéphanie Vandentorren

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Lise Eilin SteneNorwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS), Oslo, Norway. l.e.stene@nkvts.no.
Cécile VuillermozSorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'épidémiologie et de Santé Publique (IPLESP), Department of social epidemiology, Paris, France.
Roel Van OvermeireMental Health & Wellbeing research group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Johan Bilsen *Mental Health & Wellbeing research group, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.
Michel Dückers *ARQ National Psychotrauma Centre, Diemen, Netherlands.
Lisa Govasli Nilsen *Norwegian Centre for Violence and Traumatic Stress Studies (NKVTS), Oslo, Norway.
Stéphanie Vandentorren *Santé publique France, Saint Maurice, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsWe 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.

resultsIn 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.

conclusionsPsychosocial 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.

Indexed as

Psychiatric RehabilitationTerrorismBelgiumFranceHumansNorwayCrisis interventionEmergenciesEuropeHealth services researchMass casualty incidentsMental health servicesProgram evaluationPsychological traumaPsychosocial interventionsTerrorism

Identifiers

PMID35331222
PMCPMC8953389

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.