Dataset Information

Changes in benzodiazepine use in the French general population after November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris: an interrupted time series analysis of the national CONSTANCES cohort.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine whether the terrorist attacks occurring in Paris on November 2015 have changed benzodiazepine use in the French population.

Design

Interrupted time series analysis.

Setting

National population-based cohort.

Participants

90 258 individuals included in the population-based CONSTANCES cohort from 2012 to 2017.

Outcome measures

Benzodiazepine use was evaluated according to two different indicators using objective data from administrative registries: weekly number of individuals with a benzodiazepine delivered prescriptions (BDP) and weekly number of defined daily dose (DDD). Two sets of analyses were performed according to sex and age (≤50 vs >50). Education, income and area of residence were additional stratification variables to search for at-risk subgroups.

Results

Among women, those with younger age (incidence rate ratios (IRR)=1.18; 95% CI=1.05 to 1.32 for BDP; IRR=1.14; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.27 for DDD), higher education (IRR=1.23; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.46 for BDP; IRR=1.23; 95% CI=1.01 to 1.51 for DDD) and living in Paris (IRR=1.27; 95% CI=1.05 to 1.54 for BDP) presented increased risks for benzodiazepine use. Among participants under 50, an overall increase in benzodiazepine use was identified (IRR=1.14; 95% CI=1.02 to 1.28 for BDP and IRR=1.12; 95% CI=1.01 to 1.25 for DDD) and in several strata. In addition to women, those with higher education (IRR=1.22; 95% CI=1.02 to 1.47 for BDP), lower income (IRR=1.17; 95% CI=1.02 to 1.35 for BDP) and not Paris residents (IRR=1.13; 95% CI=1.02 to 1.26 for BDP and IRR=1.13; 95% CI=1.03 to 1.26 for DDD) presented increased risks for benzodiazepine use.

Conclusion

Terrorist attacks might increase benzodiazepine use at a population level, with at-risk subgroups being particularly concerned. Information and prevention strategies are needed to provide appropriate care after such events.

SUBMITTER: Gouraud C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8451294 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The use of mental health supports by populations exposed to terrorist attacks is rarely studied despite their need for psychotrauma care. This article focuses on civilians exposed to the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris and describes the different combinations of mental health supports (MHSu) used in the following year according to type of exposure and type of mental health disorder (MHD). METHODS:Santé publique France conducted a web-based survey of civilians 8-11?months after their exposure to the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. All 454 respondents met criterion A of the DSM-5 definition of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). MHD (anxiety, depression, PTSD) were assessed using the PCL-5 checklist and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. MHSu provided were grouped under outreach psychological support, visits for psychological difficulties to a victims' or victim support association, consultation with a general practitioner (GP), consultation with a psychiatrist or psychologist (specialist), and initiation of regular mental health treatment (RMHT). Chi-squared tests highlighted differences in MHSu use according to type of exposure (directly threatened, witnessed, indirectly exposed) and MHD. Phi coefficients and joint tabulations were employed to analyse combinations of MHSu use. RESULTS:Two-thirds of respondents used MHSu in the months following the attacks. Visits to a specialist and RMHT were more frequent than visits to a GP (respectively, 39, 33, 17%). These were the three MHSu most frequently used among people with PTSD (46,46,23%), with depression (52,39,20%), or with both (56,58, 33%). Witnesses with PTSD were more likely not to have RMHT than those directly threatened (respectively, 65,35%). Outreach support (35%) and visiting an association (16%) were both associated with RMHT (Phi?=?0.20 and 0.38, respectively). Very few (1%) respondents initiated RMHT directly. Those who indirectly initiated it (32%) had taken one or more intermediate steps. Visiting a specialist, not a GP, was the most frequent of these steps. CONCLUSION:Our results highlight possibilities for greater coordination of mental health care after exposure to terrorist attacks including involving GP for screening and referral, and associations to promote targeted RMHT. They also indicate that greater efforts should be made to follow witnesses.