Health outcomes of the July 14, 2016 Nice terror attack among hospital-based professionals and students: the « ECHOS de Nice » health survey protocol

Abstract

Background The terror attack of July 14, 2016, in Nice, France, resulted in 86 deaths, including children, and several hundred wounded, with a major psychological impact on the population. Hospital staff had to cope with exceptional circumstances which made them vulnerable to detrimental effects on their own health. This paper describes the method that was selected for the survey entitled “ ECHOS de Nice 14 Juillet ” which aimed to assess the impact of the attack on the psychological, psycho-traumatic and somatic health condition of the Nice University and Lenval hospital staff who were directly or indirectly exposed to the attack, and also to describe the support and care facilities they were offered. Method ECHOS de Nice 14 juillet is an observational, cross-sectional, multicentre study focusing on all the hospital staff and students of both institutions, i.e. 10,100 persons in June 2017. A web-based questionnaire based on the model developed by Santé Publique France ( IMPACTS and ESPA 13 novembre 2015 ) was adapted to the contexts of the healthcare professionals and students employed in these healthcare institutions in Nice and published on line from June 21 to October 30, 2017. The paper describes the tools that were used to meet the aims of the study, i.e. identification of exposure categories (‘civilian’ exposure for those present during the attack and/or ‘professional’ exposure); indicators of psychological impact (anxiety, depression, burnout, compassion fatigue, suicidal states, tobacco and alcohol use, self-medications), psycho-traumatic and somatic impact; professional and social impact. Lastly, awareness of availability and use of psychological support and care-follow-up facilities by professionals were investigated. Respondents could include extensive qualitative comments on the various themes explored in the questionnaire, with text analysis complementing that of quantitative data. Discussion The benefits and limitations of the selected methodology are discussed, in view of contributing useful information to help anticipate and manage health issues among hospital staff who have been victims of traumatic events.

Use of mental health supports by civilians exposed to the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris

“…Moreover, self-assessment may have resulted in inaccuracy in individual diagnosis. Furthermore, the interview period lasted 4 months, and encompassed the date of the subsequent terrorist attack in Nice (14 July 2015) [ 52 ]. This attack may have led to an increase in the intensity of PTSD symptoms in our sample.…”

Burnout and its influencing factors between frontline nurses and nurses from other wards during the outbreak of Coronavirus Disease -COVID-19- in Iran

“…( 8 ) Due to the nature of nursing work experienced heavy workload, working long hours, night shifts and risk of exposure with infectious disease, the most studies on burnout were focused on nurses that sometimes remain as significant concerns, affecting not only work office but also individual life and sometimes can lead to increased risk of developing mental and physical health problems. ( 9 ) Since an outbreak of COVID-19 as an unknown disease that causes severe respiratory infectious disease and similar experience on SARS and MERS, nursing managers need to pay more attention to frontline nurses' burnout in association with their experiences of a nationwide MERS and SARS outbreak to be able to manage the conditions. ( 10 ) Thus, the aim of the present study is to assess and compared burnout level between frontline nurses and other nurses during an outbreak of COVID-19 and to identify influencing factors in order to provide basic information for lowering and preventing the level of burnout.…”

Mental health impact among hospital staff in the aftermath of the Nice 2016 terror attack: the ECHOS de Nice study

“…By comparison, a study revealed that the participation rate was 25% among firefighters in Paris and affiliated volunteers following the November 2015 Paris attack; but this rate could not be assessed and was probably much lower among health professionals [ 15 ]. This rate may have resulted in bias, as discussed elsewhere [ 23 ]. Indeed, unexposed personnel may have felt unconcerned by the survey and not considered it worthwhile to participate: thus, only 1014 among all the employees chose to connect to the web questionnaire, and 804 completed it, i.e.…”

“…This was a cross-sectional, multi-centre, observational study. The detailed description of the study protocol has been described elsewhere [ 23 ].…”