See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Sandra Jumbe
Queen Mary University of London
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6624-1689
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
Over recent years there have been several major terror attacks in cities across Europe. These attacks result in deaths, physical injuries, and pose long-term threats to mental health and wellbeing of large populations. Although psychologists and psychiatrists have completed important work on mental health responses to disaster exposure including terrorist attacks, the mental health and wellbeing impacts of such attacks have been comparatively less examined in academic literature than the acute health response to physical injuries. This paper reflects on Southwark Council’s pioneering public health response to the June 2017 terror attack at London Bridge and Borough Market. It aims to explore the perceptions of mental health and wellbeing impact of the incident, and evaluate Council led efforts to minimise mental health and wellbeing sequelae following the attack.
Methods
A rapid qualitative evaluation informed by the logic underpinning Southwark Council’s response was conducted. Nineteen in-depth semi-structured interviews with consenting Southwark Council employees, residents, business owners, and workers from the London Borough of Southwark were conducted. Seven formative interviews were conducted with members of Southwark Council and other individuals directly involved in the planning and/or delivery of the mental health and wellbeing response. Twelve subsequent interviews were then conducted with residents, business owners and council employees to examine the mental health and wellbeing impacts of the attack and the effectiveness of the response. A thematic analysis of transcribed interviews was undertaken.
Results
The main theme found was that the attack had a wide-reaching negative impact and the main subthemes found that delivering the response was a challenge, that there was multifacted damage botha cross and within communities, and there was limited visibility of the response within the community. As such, when establishing a health and wellbeing response, public health expertise and capacity provides an opportunity to dynamically identify and respond to emerging mental health and wellbeing needs. A comprehensive systematic approach to health needs assessment which draws on knowledge and relationships of key Council workers and community stakeholders is imperative. This improves communication and working relationships between statutory organisations and community stakeholders, and ensures all groups in the community are reached and supported in a manner appropriate for them. It is also critical that mental health needs of Council staff involved in delivering such a response are met. Failure to do this risks extending the negative impacts of such events.
Conclusions
This article highlights the potential of taking a public health approach in the aftermath of terror attacks. This approach has already influenced the response to the Christchurch mosque shooting in 2019.
Keywords
terror attack, mental health, qualitative research, public health
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Version 2
Posted 11 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 18 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 10 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 27 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Oct, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 19 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 27 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 28 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 May, 2020
First submitted
On 06 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Sandra Jumbe
Queen Mary University of London
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6624-1689
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Version 2
Posted 11 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Jan, 2021
Review #2 received
Received 18 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 10 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 04 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 04 Jan, 2021
Editor assigned
On 27 Dec, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Dec, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Dec, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 27 Oct, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 19 Oct, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 12 Oct, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 27 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 02 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 28 Jun, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 02 Jun, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 May, 2020
First submitted
On 06 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Background
Over recent years there have been several major terror attacks in cities across Europe. These attacks result in deaths, physical injuries, and pose long-term threats to mental health and wellbeing of large populations. Although psychologists and psychiatrists have completed important work on mental health responses to disaster exposure including terrorist attacks, the mental health and wellbeing impacts of such attacks have been comparatively less examined in academic literature than the acute health response to physical injuries. This paper reflects on Southwark Council’s pioneering public health response to the June 2017 terror attack at London Bridge and Borough Market. It aims to explore the perceptions of mental health and wellbeing impact of the incident, and evaluate Council led efforts to minimise mental health and wellbeing sequelae following the attack.
Methods
A rapid qualitative evaluation informed by the logic underpinning Southwark Council’s response was conducted. Nineteen in-depth semi-structured interviews with consenting Southwark Council employees, residents, business owners, and workers from the London Borough of Southwark were conducted. Seven formative interviews were conducted with members of Southwark Council and other individuals directly involved in the planning and/or delivery of the mental health and wellbeing response. Twelve subsequent interviews were then conducted with residents, business owners and council employees to examine the mental health and wellbeing impacts of the attack and the effectiveness of the response. A thematic analysis of transcribed interviews was undertaken.
Results
The main theme found was that the attack had a wide-reaching negative impact and the main subthemes found that delivering the response was a challenge, that there was multifacted damage botha cross and within communities, and there was limited visibility of the response within the community. As such, when establishing a health and wellbeing response, public health expertise and capacity provides an opportunity to dynamically identify and respond to emerging mental health and wellbeing needs. A comprehensive systematic approach to health needs assessment which draws on knowledge and relationships of key Council workers and community stakeholders is imperative. This improves communication and working relationships between statutory organisations and community stakeholders, and ensures all groups in the community are reached and supported in a manner appropriate for them. It is also critical that mental health needs of Council staff involved in delivering such a response are met. Failure to do this risks extending the negative impacts of such events.
Conclusions
This article highlights the potential of taking a public health approach in the aftermath of terror attacks. This approach has already influenced the response to the Christchurch mosque shooting in 2019.
Figure 1
Figure 2
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...