ArticleBJPsych open2025
Proactive psychosocial follow-up of youth exposed to a terrorist attack: longitudinal study linking interviews and register-based data.
Article in BJPsych open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundKnowledge on efficient approaches to the provision of post-disaster psychosocial care is urgently needed. To prevent unmet healthcare needs, proactive follow-up by municipal contact persons was recommended for survivors of the Utøya youth camp attack in Norway.
aimsTo examine characteristics of the survivors by whether or not they had a contact person in the early (0-5 months), intermediary (5-15 months) and long-term (20-32 months) aftermath of the attack, and to describe the survivors' experiences with the contact person.
methodWe analysed data from three waves of interviews with survivors conducted 4-5, 14-15 and 30-32 months after the attack, as well as register-based data on the use of mental health services from 3 years before until 3 years after the attack.
resultsSurvivors with a contact person early post-attack were less likely to receive care from mental health services concurrently or to have anxiety/depression symptoms subsequently compared with survivors without a contact person in the same period. Survivors with a contact person in the intermediary aftermath were more satisfied with the overall help they received, but also more likely to have long-term anxiety/depression symptoms. Survivors with a contact person in the long term were more likely to be financially disadvantaged. Approximately half of the survivors with a contact person found this highly or very highly useful, whereas one-third found it of little use or not at all useful.
conclusionsThe proactive outreach reached survivors across sociodemographic characteristics during the recommended first year of follow-up, which could be conducive to prevention of unmet healthcare needs. Still, there was considerable variation in the perceived usefulness and duration of the follow-up.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.