Blog
About

8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Participant reactions to survey research in the general population after terrorist attacks.

      Journal of Traumatic Stress

      Demography, Humans, Mass Screening, methods, Population Surveillance, Questionnaires, September 11 Terrorist Attacks, psychology, Severity of Illness Index, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, epidemiology, etiology, Time Factors

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There remains concern that survey research after a disaster can precipitate or exacerbate distress among study participants. The authors surveyed 5,774 persons in three random-digit-dial telephone surveys of the general population of New York City conducted 1-2 months, 4-5 months, and 6-9 months after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Overall, 746 (12.9%) people who finished the surveys said that the survey questions were upsetting but only 57 (1.0% overall) were still upset at the end of the interview, and 19 (0.3%) wanted assistance from a counselor. Ten persons who did not finish the survey also received counselor assistance. Persons with mental health symptoms were more likely to find the survey questions emotionally upsetting as were participants who lacked salutary resources, including health insurance and a regular health care provider. Although relatively few of those interviewed found the survey assessment disturbing, the presence of a small number of respondents who wanted mental health assistance suggests the need for a mental health backup system for research conducted soon after exposure to large-scale traumatic events.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          16281243
          10.1002/jts.20053

          Comments

          Comment on this article