Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:57:00.084Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the self-reported questionnaires used to assess mental health after the January 2015 terrorist attacks in the Paris Region: IMPACTS survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2022

L. Bertuzzi ,
C. Vuillermoz ,
T. El Aarbaoui ,
M. Héron ,
L. Aubert ,
P. Pirard ,
S. Vandentorren  and
Y. Motreff
L. Bertuzzi
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Université, Inserm, Institut Pierre Louis D’épidémiologie Et De Santé Publique, Iplesp, Social Epidemiology Research Team, Paris, France
C. Vuillermoz*
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Université, Inserm, Institut Pierre Louis D’épidémiologie Et De Santé Publique, Iplesp, Social Epidemiology Research Team, Paris, France
T. El Aarbaoui
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Université, Inserm, Institut Pierre Louis D’épidémiologie Et De Santé Publique, Iplesp, Social Epidemiology Research Team, Paris, France
M. Héron
Affiliation:
Sorbonne Université, Inserm, Institut Pierre Louis D’épidémiologie Et De Santé Publique, Iplesp, Social Epidemiology Research Team, Paris, France
L. Aubert
Affiliation:
Santé publique France, Cire Antilles, Pointe-à-pître, France
P. Pirard
Affiliation:
Santé publique France, Direction Des Maladies Non Transmissibles Et Traumatismes, Saint Maurice, France
S. Vandentorren
Affiliation:
Santé publique France, Direction Scientifique Et Internationale, Saint Maurice, France
Y. Motreff
Affiliation:
Santé publique France, Direction Des Maladies Non Transmissibles Et Traumatismes, Saint Maurice, France
*
*Corresponding author.

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction

Structured clinical interviews are the gold standard for assessing mental health. However limited resources may allow the use of only self-report questionnaires. In the context of emergency, such as terrorist attacks, the performance and thresholds of such tools still unclear.

Objectives

We investigated the performance of the Posttraumatic stress disorder CheckList Scale (PCL-S) and of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS), both compared to the MINI Interview, among civilians and first responders involved in terrorist attacks.

Methods

The data came from the IMPACTS survey which was conducted from 6-10 months among civilians (N=190) and first responders (N=232) after the January 2015 terrorist attacks in the Paris Region, France. Sensitivity and specificity of the PCL-S and HADS were estimated by the ROC curve, and the optimal threshold was defined using the Youden index.

Results

Regarding the PCL-S: for civilians and first responders respectively, the overall AUC was 0.947 and 0.899, and the optimal threshold were 38.5 and 39.5. Regarding the HADS-D: for civilians and first responders respectively, the overall AUC was 0.908 and 0.617 and the optimal thresholds were 7.5 and 1.5. For the HADS-A for civilians and first responders respectively, the overall AUC was 0.823 and 0.717, the optimal threshold were 9.5 and 6.5.

Conclusions

In the context of a terrorist attack, compared to the MINI, our study underlined satisfactory performance of the PCL-S and the HADS-D in screening for PTSD and depression respectively, while the screening of anxiety using the HADS-A was unsatisfactory.

Disclosure

No significant relationships.

Keywords

Mental health disordersself-report questionnairesTerrorist attack
Type
Abstract
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 65 , Special Issue S1: Abstracts of the 30th European Congress of Psychiatry , June 2022 , pp. S262 - S263
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the European Psychiatric Association
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.