Post-disaster psychosocial services across Europe: The TENTS project
At present post-disaster activities and plans seem to vary widely. An adequate estimation of the availability of post-disaster psychosocial services across Europe is needed in order to compare them with recently developed evidence-informed psychosocial care guidelines. Here we report on the results of a cross-sectional web-based survey completed in 2008 by two hundred and eighty-six representatives of organizations involved in psychosocial responses to trauma and disaster from thirty-three different countries across Europe. The survey addressed planning and delivery of psychosocial care after disaster, methods of screening and diagnosis, types of interventions used, and other aspects of psychosocial care after trauma. The findings showed that planning and delivery of psychosocial care was inconsistent across Europe. Countries in East Europe seemed to have less central coordination of the post-disaster psychosocial response and fewer post-disaster guidelines that were integrated into specific disaster or contingency plans. Several forms of psychological debriefing, for which there is no evidence of efficacy to date, were still used in several areas particularly in North Europe. East European countries delivered evidence-based interventions for PTSD less frequently, whilst in South- and South-Eastern European countries anxiety suppressing medication such as benzodiazepines were prescribed more frequently to disaster victims than in other areas. Countries across Europe are currently providing sub-optimal psychosocial care for disaster victims. This short report shows that there is an urgent need for some countries to abandon non-effective interventions and others to develop more evidence based and effective services to facilitate the care of those involved in future disasters.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 75 (2012)
Issue (Month): 9 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:75:y:2012:i:9:p:1708-1714. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.