Screen and Treat Programme evaluation

Terrorist attacks are increasingly frequent global phenomena with wide-reaching behavioural, health and economic consequences, affecting both directly and indirectly exposed individuals and their families, as well as society as a whole. Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health problems are common consequences of exposure to terrorism. 

PIRU and PSSRU were asked to evaluate the Screen and Treat Programme setup by the Department of Heath to support UK citizens affected by the terrorist attacks in Tunisia (March and June 2015), Paris (November 2015) and Brussels (March 2016). 

The aims of this evaluation were: 

• to find out if the Screen and Treat Programme was effective in screening and referring people to appropriate services; 

• to find out if people recovered; 

• to measure the Programme’s economic impacts; 

• to assess the Programme’s acceptability to users; 

• to understand how all the agencies involved worked together. 

A secondary aim was to find out how the Programme worked for children and young people under the age of 18 years. 

In this mixed methods evaluation, we examined: 

• the progress of people affected by the incidents through the stages of the Programme; 

• impact of the attacks on health, work/study and daily life; 

• service use of the affected people; 

• individuals’ experiences of the Programme; 

• treatment outcomes; 

• costs associated with exposure to the attacks; 

• inter-agency working and the experiences of professionals, including service providers, involved in setting up and administering of the Programme. 

Most service users reported major impacts of the attacks, including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Many had reduced their work hours or took sick leave. Two-thirds sought help from GPs but felt unsupported in dealing with PTSD or referrals to appropriate care. Several were prescribed medication, but few were referred to mental health professionals. Many sought non-NHS support with mixed experiences. Waiting times for treatment varied, but most felt the programme should have started sooner and provided better information on support. Most users found treatment received via the programme helpful. Professionals noted bureaucratic delays in setting up the programme and emphasised the need for an outreach approach to identify at-risk individuals.