Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research logoLink to International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
. 2008 Nov 26;17(Suppl 2):S29–S35. doi: 10.1002/mpr.270

Methodological challenges in assessing general population reactions in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack

G James Rubin 1,2,✉, Richard Amlôt 2, Lisa Page 1,3, Simon Wessely 1
PMCID: PMC6879084  PMID: 19035438

Abstract

Assessing mental health needs following a disaster is important, particularly within high‐risk groups such as first responders or individuals who found themselves directly caught up in the incident. Particularly following events involving widespread destruction, ingenuity and hard work are required to successfully study these issues. When considering responses among the general population following less devastating events such as a conventional terrorist attack, or following an event involving a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agent, other variables may become more relevant for determining the population's overall psychosocial well‐being. Trust, perceived risk, sense of safety, willingness to take prophylaxis and unnecessary attendance at medical facilities will all be important in determining the overall psychological, medical, economic and political impact of such attacks. Assessing these variables can help government agencies and non‐governmental organizations to adjust their communication and outreach efforts. As there is often a need to provide these data quickly, telephone surveys using short time‐windows for data collection or which use quota samples are often required. It is unclear whether slower, more conventional and more expensive survey methods with better response rates would produce results different enough to these quicker and cheaper methods to have a major impact on any resulting policy decisions. This empirical question would benefit from further study. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords: general population reactions, aftermath, terrorist attack, Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear terrorism (CBRN)

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (130.8 KB).

REFERENCES

  1. Bali VA (2007). Terror and elections: lessons from Spain. Electoral Studies 26: 669–87. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2007.04.004 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bishop GF (2005). The illusion of public opinion: fact and artefact in American public opinion polls. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bleich A, Gelkopf M, Solomon Z (2003). Exposure to terrorism, stress‐related mental health symptoms, and coping behaviors among a nationally representative sample in Israel. JAMA 612–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Blendon RJ, Benson JM, DesRoches CM, Weldon KJ (2003a). Using opinion surveys to track the public's response to a bioterrorist attack. J Health Communication 8: 83–92. DOI: 10.1080/713851964 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blendon RJ, DesRoches CM, Benson JM, Herrmann MJ, Taylor‐Clark K, Weldon KJ (2003b). The public and the smallpox threat. N Engl J Med 348: 426–32. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa023184 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bonanno GA (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience. Am Psychol 59: 20–8. DOI: 10.1037/0003‐066X.59.1.20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowling A, Bond M, Jenkinson C, Lamping DL (1999). Short‐form 36 (SF‐36) health survey questionnaire: which normative data should be used? Comparisons between the norms provided by the Omnibus Survey in Britain, the Health Survey for England and the Oxford Life Survey. J Public Health Med 21: 255–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Chiu P‐L, Riddick H, Hardy AM (2001). A comparison of characteristics between late/difficult and non‐late/difficult interviews in the national health interview survey. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, 5–9 August.
  9. Fischhoff B, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Lerner JS (2003). Evaluating the success of terror risk communications. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science 1: 254–8. DOI: 10.1089/153871303771861450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Galea S, Vlahov D, Resnick H, Ahern J, Susser E, Gold J, et al. (2003). Trends of probable post‐traumatic stress disorder in New York City after September 11 terrorist attacks. Am J Epidemiol 158: 514–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gigerenzer G (2006). Out of the frying pan into the fire: behavioral reactions to terrorist attacks. Risk Analysis 26: 347–51. DOI: 10.1111/j.1539‐6924.2006.00753.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Groves RM (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 70: 646–75. DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfl033 [Google Scholar]
  13. Groves RM, Singer E, Corning A (2000). Leverage‐saliency theory of survey participation: description and an illustration. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 299–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Horwitz AV (2007). Distinguishing distress from disorder as psychological outcomes of stressful social arrangements. Health 11: 273–89. DOI: 10.1177/1363459307077541 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hyams KC, Murphy FM, Wessely S (2002). Responding to chemical, biological or nuclear terrorism: the indirect and long‐term health effects may present the greatest challenge. J Health Politics, Policy and Law 27: 273–91. DOI: 10.1215/03616878‐27‐2‐273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Inter‐Agency Standing Committee (2007). IASC guidelines on mental health and psychosocial support in emergency settings. Geneva: Inter‐Agency Standing Committee. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Keeter S, Kennedy C, Dimock M, Best J, Craighill P (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 70: 759–79. DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfl035 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kessler RC, Little RJA, Groves RM (1995). Advances in strategies for minimizing and adjusting for survey nonresponse. Epidemiol Rev 17: 192–204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kruijshaar ME, Barendregt J, Vos T, de Graaf R, Spijker J, Andrews G (2005). Lifetime prevalence estimates of major depression: an indirect estimation method and a quantification of recall bias. Eur J Epidemiol 20: 103–11. DOI: 10.1007/s10654‐004‐1009‐0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. LaGuardia R, Smith G, Francois R, Bachman L (1983). Incidence of delayed stress disorder among Vietnam era veterans: the effect of priming on response set. Am J Orthopsychiatry 53: 18–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Miguel‐Tobal JJ, Cano‐Vindel A, Gonzalez‐Ordi H, Iruarrizaga I, Rudenstine S, Vlahov D, et al. (2006). PTSD and depression after the Madrid March 11 train bombings. J Traumatic Stress 19: 69–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Norris FH, Elrod CL (2006). Psychosocial consequences of disaster. A review of past research In Norris FH, Galea S, Friedman MJ, Watson PJ. (eds). Methods for Disaster Mental Health Research. London: The Guildford Press, pp 20–42. [Google Scholar]
  23. Page LA, Petrie KJ, Wessely SC (2006). Psychosocial responses to environmental incidents: a review and a proposed typology. J Psychosomatic Res 60: 413–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rose S, Bisson J, Wessely S (2003). A systematic review of single‐session psychological interventions ('debriefing') following trauma. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 72: 176–84. DOI: 10.1159/000070781. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Rubin GJ, Brewin CR, Greenberg N, Simpson J, Wessely S (2005). Psychological and behavioural reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005: cross sectional survey of a representative sample of Londoners. Br Med J 331: 606–11. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.38583.728484.3A [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rubin GJ, Brewin CR, Greenberg N, Hacker Hughes J, Simpson J, Wessely S (2007a). Enduring consequences of terrorism: 7 month follow‐up survey of reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005. Br J Psychiatry 190: 350–6. DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.029785 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rubin GJ, Page LA, Morgan O, Pinder RJ, Riley P, Hatch S, et al. (2007b). Public information needs after the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with Polonium‐210 in London: cross sectional telephone survey and qualitative analysis. Br Med J 335: 1143–6. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39367.455243.BE [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Schlenger WE, Caddell JM, Ebert L, Jordan BK, Rourke KM, Wilson D, et al. (2002). Psychological reactions to terrorist attacks. Findings from the national study of Americans' reactions to September 11. JAMA 288: 581–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Schulden J, Chen J, Kresnow M, Arias I, Crosby A, Mercy J, et al. (2006). Psychological responses to the sniper attacks, Washington DC area, October 2002. Am J Preventive Med 31: 324–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Smith TMF (1983). On the validity of inferences from non‐random samples. J Royal Stat Soc A 146: 394–403. [Google Scholar]
  31. Stuber J, Galea S, Boscarino JA, Schlesinger M (2006). Was there unmet mental health need after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks? Soc Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiol 40: 1–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wessely S, Unwin C, Hotopf M, Hull L, Ismail K, Nicolaou V, et al. (2003). Stability of recall of military hazards over time. Evidence from the Persian Gulf War of 1991. Br J Psychiatry 183: 314–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Worcester R (1996). Political polling: 95% expertise and 5% luck. J Royal Stat Soc A 159: 5–20. [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES