Research on disaster behavioral health presents significant methodological challenges. Challenges are even more complex for research on mass violence events that involve military members, families, and communities, due to the cultural and logistical considerations of working with this population. The current article aims to inform and educate on this specialized area of research, by presenting a case study on the experience of designing and conducting disaster behavioral health research after a mass violence event in a military setting: the 2013 mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard, in Washington, D.C. Using the case example, the authors explore methodological challenges and lessons learned from conducting research in this context, and provide guidance for future researchers.

How did the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing differ from prior disasters and what implications did it have for disaster mental health services and service delivery? The federal disaster mental health approach in this country developed largely out of experiences with natural disasters. The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing differed in several important ways, including the large number of human casualties, higher rates of psychopathology, and an extended period of concern due to the criminal investigation and trials, which suggested the need to consider modifications in the program. Outreach was extensive, but psychiatric morbidity of direct victims was greater than that of victims of natural disasters, emphasizing the need for attention to the triage and referral process. Other concerns that warrant consideration include practices related to record keeping and program evaluation.

Objective: Despite the prevalence of homelessness, this population has rarely been included in disaster and terrorism planning. To better understand the mental health needs of the homeless during a terrorist event and to highlight the need to address methodological limitations in research in this area, we examined responses to the October 2002 Washington, DC, sniper attacks.

Methods: We interviewed 151 homeless individuals 1 year after the Washington, DC, sniper attacks.

Results: The majority (92.7%) was aware of the sniper events; 84.1% stayed informed through the media and 72.7% had someone to turn to for emotional support. Almost half (44%) reported identification with victims and 41% increased substance use during the attacks. More than half (61.7%) felt extremely frightened or terrified and 57.6% reported high perceived threat. Females, nonwhites, and participants with less than a high school education experienced greater threat. Women, nonwhites, and younger (<43 years old) participants were more likely to have decreased more activities and 32.7% increased confidence in local law enforcement; however, 32.7% became less confident.

Conclusions: During a terrorist attack the homeless population may be difficult to reach or reluctant to comply with public health programs. Addressing barriers to health care in vulnerable groups is critical to effective public health disaster response. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2009;3:163–167)

In substantial numbers of affected populations, disasters adversely affect well-being and influence the development of emotional problems and dysfunctional behaviors. Nowhere is the integration of mental and behavioral health into broader public health and medical preparedness and response activities more crucial than in disasters such as the 2009-2010 H1N1 influenza pandemic. The National Biodefense Science Board, recognizing that the mental and behavioral health responses to H1N1 were vital to preserving safety and health for the country, requested that the Disaster Mental Health Subcommittee recommend actions for public health officials to prevent and mitigate adverse behavioral health outcomes during the H1N1 pandemic. The subcommittee's recommendations emphasized vulnerable populations and concentrated on interventions, education and training, and communication and messaging. The subcommittee's H1N1 activities and recommendations provide an approach and template for identifying and addressing future efforts related to newly emerging public health and medical emergencies. The many emotional and behavioral health implications of the crisis and the importance of psychological factors in determining the behavior of members of the public argue for a programmatic integration of behavioral health and science expertise in a comprehensive public health response.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:67–71)

The close interplay between mental health and physical health makes it critical to integrate mental and behavioral health considerations into all aspects of public health and medical disaster management. Therefore, the National Biodefense Science Board (NBSB) convened the Disaster Mental Health Subcommittee to assess the progress of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in integrating mental and behavioral health into disaster and emergency preparedness and response activities. One vital opportunity to improve integration is the development of clear and directive national policy to firmly establish the role of mental and behavioral health as part of a unified public health and medical response to disasters. Integration of mental and behavioral health into disaster preparedness, response, and recovery requires it to be incorporated in assessments and services, addressed in education and training, and founded on and advanced through research. Integration must be supported in underlying policies and administration with clear lines of responsibility for formulating and implementing policy and practice.

(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2012;6:60–66)

Despite limited resources, emergency medical settings will be called upon to play many roles in the context of disasters and terrorist attacks that are related to preparedness, surveillance, mental health services delivery, and staff care. Such settings are a central capture site for those individuals likely to be at highest risk for developing mental health and functional problems. Because much of the potential harm to survivors of disaster or terrorism (and their families) will be related to their mental health and role functioning, preparedness requires the active integration of behavioral health into emergency medicine in every component of disaster response. There are many challenges of doing this including: (1) finding ways to integrate activities of the medical care, emergency response, and public health systems; (2) determining whether an incident has actually occurred; (3) making differential diagnoses and managing other aspects of initial medical needs; and (4) coping with the risks associated with system overload and failure. Delivery of direct mental health care must include: (1) survivor and family education; (2) identification and referral of those requiring immediate care and followup; (3) group education and support services; and (4) individual counseling. In order for effective response to occur, the integration of psychosocial care into disaster response must occur prior to the disaster itself, and will depend on effective collaboration between medical and mental health care providers. At workplaces, emergency medical care centers must ensure that staff and their families are properly trained and supported with regard to their disaster functions and encouraged to develop personal/family disaster plans.