Cited by 169Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolenceMigration, Health and Trauma

Outreach and screening following the 2005 London bombings: usage and outcomes

Open access
Brewin, C. R., Fuchkan, N., Huntley, Z., Robertson, M., Thompson, M., Scragg, P., d'Ardenne, P., Ehlers, A.·2010·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Background: Little is known about how to remedy the unmet mental health needs associated with major terrorist attacks, or what outcomes are achievable with evidence-based treatment. This article reports the usage, diagnoses and outcomes associated with the 2-year Trauma Response Programme (TRP) for those affected by the 2005 London bombings. Method: Following a systematic and coordinated programme of outreach, the contact details of 910 people were obtained by the TRP. Of these, 596 completed a screening instrument that included the Trauma Screening Questionnaire (TSQ) and items assessing other negative responses. Those scoring ⩾6 on the TSQ, or endorsing other negative responses, received a detailed clinical assessment. Individuals judged to need treatment (n=217) received trauma-focused cognitive-behaviour therapy (TF-CBT) or eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR). Symptom levels were assessed pre- and post-treatment with validated self-report measures of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression, and 66 were followed up at 1 year. Results: Case finding relied primarily on outreach rather than standard referral pathways such as primary care. The effect sizes achieved for treatment of DSM-IV PTSD exceeded those usually found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and gains were well maintained an average of 1 year later. Conclusions: Outreach with screening, linked to the provision of evidence-based treatment, seems to be a viable method of identifying and meeting mental health needs following a terrorist attack. Given the failure of normal care pathways, it is a potentially important approach that merits further evaluation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291710000206

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. First MB Spitzer RL Gibbon M Williams JBW 1997 Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders – Patient Edition (SCID-IP; Version 2.0, 4/97 revision). Biometrics Research Department New York State Psychiatric Institute New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brewin, C. R., Fuchkan, N., Huntley, Z., Robertson, M., Thompson, M., Scragg, P., d'Ardenne, P., & Ehlers, A.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Camden and Islington NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • East London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Brewin, C. R.
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2010-03-09
Volume
40
Issue
12
Pages
2049-2057
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2048941857
Cited by
169
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust (069777)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Migration, Health and Trauma
Keywords
2005 London bombings, post-traumatic stress disorder, EMDR, mental health outreach, trauma screening, case finding, unmet mental health needs, depression, treatment outcomes, long-term follow-up
MeSH terms
Adult, Community-Institutional Relations, Depression, Female, Humans, London, Male, Mass Screening, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Primary Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Wounds and Injuries, Cohort Studies, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Evidence-Based Medicine, Needs Assessment, Terrorism, Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review