Trajectories of distress and recovery, secondary stressors and social cure processes in people who used the resilience hub after the Manchester Arena bombing.

BACKGROUND: Terrorist incidents lead to a range of mental health outcomes for people affected, sometimes extending years after the event. Secondary stressors can exacerbate them, and social support can provide mitigation and aid recovery. There is a need to better understand distress and mitigating factors among survivors of the Manchester Arena attack in 2017. AIMS: We explored three questions. First, what experiences of distress did participants report? Second, how might secondary stressors have influenced participants' psychosocial recoveries? Third, what part has social support played in the relationships between distress and participants' recovery trajectories? METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional online survey of a convenience sample of survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing (N = 84) in January 2021 (3 years 8 months post-incident), and a longitudinal study of the same participants' scores on mental health measures over 3 years from September 2017. RESULTS: Survivors' mental well-being scores in early 2021 were significantly lower than general population norms. Longitudinal follow-up provided evidence of enduring distress. Secondary stressors, specifically disruptions to close relationships, were associated with greater post-event distress and slower recovery. We found an indirect relationship between identifying with, and receiving support from, others present at the event and mental well-being >3 years later. CONCLUSIONS: The Arena attack has had an enduring impact on mental health, even in survivors who had a mild response to the event. The quality of close relationships is pivotal to long-term outcome. Constructive support from family and friends, and people with shared experiences, are key to social cure processes that facilitate coping and recovery.

Survivors' experiences of informal social support in coping and recovering after the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing.

BACKGROUND: Much of the psychosocial care people receive after major incidents and disasters is informal and is provided by families, friends, peer groups and wider social networks. Terrorist attacks have increased in recent years. Therefore, there is a need to better understand and facilitate the informal social support given to survivors. AIMS: We addressed three questions. First, what is the nature of any informal support-seeking and provision for people who experienced the 2017 Manchester Arena terrorist attack? Second, who provided support, and what makes it helpful? Third, to what extent do support groups based on shared experience of the attack operate as springboards to recovery? METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with a purposive sample of 18 physically non-injured survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing, registered at the NHS Manchester Resilience Hub. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Participants often felt constrained from sharing their feelings with friends and families, who were perceived as unable to understand their experiences. They described a variety of forms of helpful informal social support, including social validation, which was a feature of support provided by others based on shared experience. For many participants, accessing groups based on shared experience was an important factor in their coping and recovery, and was a springboard to personal growth. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that people who respond to survivors' psychosocial and mental healthcare needs after emergencies and major incidents should facilitate interventions for survivors and their social networks that maximise the benefits of shared experience and social validation.

People's experiences of distress and psychosocial care following a terrorist attack: interviews with survivors of the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017.

BACKGROUND: Distress after major incidents is widespread among survivors. The great majority do not meet the criteria for mental health disorders and rely on psychosocial care provided by their informal networks and official response services. There is a need to better understand their experiences of distress and psychosocial care needs. AIMS: The aims of our study were to enhance understanding of the experience of distress among people present at the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017, identify their experiences of psychosocial care after the incident and learn how to better deliver and target effective psychosocial care following major incidents. METHOD: We conducted a thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 18 physically non-injured survivors of the Manchester Arena attack, who registered with the NHS Manchester Resilience Hub. RESULTS: Distress was ubiquitous, with long-lasting health and social consequences. Initial reluctance to seek help from services was also common. Early and open access to authoritative sources of information and emotional support, and organised events for survivors, were viewed as helpful interventions. Inappropriate forms of psychosocial and mental healthcare were common and potent stressors that affected coping and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This paper extends our understanding of how people react to major events. Provision for the large group of people who are distressed and require psychosocial care may be inadequate after many incidents. There is a substantial agenda for developing awareness of people's needs for psychosocial interventions, and training practitioners to deliver them. The findings have substantial implications for policy and service design.

Psychological screening of adults and young people following the Manchester Arena incident.

BACKGROUND: Terrorist attacks have increased globally since the late 1990s with clear evidence of psychological distress across both adults and children and young people (CYP). After the Manchester Arena terrorist attack, the Resilience Hub was established to identify people in need of psychological and psychosocial support. AIMS: To examine the severity of symptoms and impact of the programme. METHOD: The hub offers outreach, screening, clinical telephone triage and facilitation to access evidenced treatments. People were screened for trauma, depression, generalised anxiety and functioning who registered at 3, 6 and 9 months post-incident. Baseline scores were compared between screening groups (first screen at 3, 6 or 9 months) in each cohort (adult, CYP), and within groups to compare scores at 9 months. RESULTS: There were significant differences in adults' baseline scores across screening groups on trauma, depression, anxiety and functioning. There were significant differences in the baseline scores of CYP across screening groups on trauma, depression, generalised anxiety and separation anxiety. Paired samples t-tests demonstrated significant differences between baseline and follow-up scores on all measures for adults in the 3-month screening group, and only depression and functioning measures for adults in the 6-month screening group. Data about CYP in the 3-month screening group, demonstrated significant differences between baseline and follow-up scores on trauma, generalised anxiety and separation anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest people who register earlier are less symptomatic and demonstrate greater improvement across a range of psychological measures. Further longitudinal research is necessary to understand changes over time. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.