4.4 Article

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

Journal

BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-07691-2

Keywords

Terrorism; Mass casualty incidents; Crisis intervention; Emergencies; Psychological trauma; Psychosocial interventions; Health services research; Mental health services; Program evaluation; Europe

Funding

  1. Research Council of Norway [288321]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study describes the content, target populations and providers of psychosocial care for civilians after terrorist attacks in Norway, France and Belgium. The study found significant differences in the psychosocial care responses among the three countries, especially in terms of long-term follow-up activities.
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/Utoya, 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available