Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

12 results

  • Chapter 54 - The Threat of Pandemics to Interwoven Material, Social, Health, and Political Resources: Conservation of Resources as a Strategy for Avoiding Repeating Past Failure

  • from Section 6 - Designing, Leading, and Managing Responses to Emergencies and Pandemics
  • Edited by Richard Williams, University of South Wales, Verity Kemp, Independent Health Emergency Planning Consultant, Keith Porter, University of Birmingham, Tim Healing, Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London, John Drury, University of Sussex
  • Book:
    Major Incidents, Pandemics and Mental Health
    Published online:
    11 January 2024
    Print publication:
    01 February 2024, pp 411-416

  • Summary

    Conservation of resources (COR) theory demands that we examine the full spectrum of potential resource loss and resources at risk in circumstances of a life-threatening pandemic, in order to predict and respond to psychological, social, material, financial, and sociopolitical outcomes. In the case of the COVID-19 global pandemic, health experts and academics responded within their siloed expertise, which ignored economic and sociopolitical imperatives, resulting in near-disastrous consequences that they still fail to appreciate. Many people in the population at risk had their employment, availability to feed themselves and their families, and housing and shelter threatened, as well as their health and lives, but this interwoven network of resources was mostly ignored. This divide between the sociopolitical-economic domain and the public health domain led to public resistance and allowed an authoritarian political wedge to further complicate and undermine not only health, but also the very fabric of democracy.

  • 18 - Mental Health and Terrorism

  • from Part II - The Social Context of Mental Health and Illness: Introduction to Part II
  • Edited by Teresa L. Scheid, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Eric R. Wright, Georgia State University
  • Book:
    A Handbook for the Study of Mental Health
    Published online:
    28 May 2018
    Print publication:
    08 June 2017, pp 357-386

  • Summary

    This chapter investigates the amount of research interest in the relationship between mental health and terrorism. In addition, Johnson and colleagues have begun to identify the seminal research in the field as the frequency of publications increased allowing dominant and coherent trends of study to emerge. Both broad theoretical advances and focused conceptual refinements have been identified and discussed. The authors have also sought to identify the broader lacunae in the field and suggest future directions for research. Their results reveal that the dramatic increase in research focusing on the topics of terrorism and mental health reached their highpoints five to ten years after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, DC, and the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. The first highpoint occurred after five years with respect to health and terrorism specifically, while research on terrorism in general continued to rise in the social science literature for another five years before its first major descent was recorded in 2012. The reaction to those attacks themselves dominated much of the research. In addition to ongoing attention to mental health topics and risk behaviors occurring as a result of those attacks, a developing trend in positive outcomes such as post-traumatic growth (PTG) and especially resilience have been noted.

    While the frequency of published research generally has started to wane in the second decade following the September 11 attacks, many of the questions raised by the research in the first decade remain unanswered. Will new tragedies in understudied parts of the world demand resurgence in research focusing on the association between mental health and terrorism, or will it take another crisis among Western nations (e.g., the current wave of refugees into Europe from non-European Union nations)? With waves of terrorism washing over large regions of the globe, what factors determine who and what topics are drawing the attention of mental health researchers? How would you define resilience in the face of terrorism and what examples of it can you provide? What work remains to be done on resilience to broaden its application to sociology?

  • Conflict will Harden your Heart: Exposure to Violence, Psychological Distress, and Peace Barriers in Israel and Palestine

  • Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler, Daphna Canetti, Carmit Rapaport, Stevan E. Hobfoll
  • Journal:
    British Journal of Political Science / Volume 46 / Issue 4 / October 2016
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    15 October 2014, pp. 845-859
    Print publication:
    October 2016

  • Does exposure to political violence prompt civilians to support peace? We investigate the determinants of civilian attitudes toward peace during ongoing conflict using two original panel datasets representing Israelis (n=996) and Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza (n=631) (149 communities in total). A multi-group estimation analysis shows that individual-level exposure to terrorism and political violence makes the subject populations less likely to support peace efforts. The findings also confirm psychological distress and threat perceptions as the mechanism that bridges exposure to violence and greater militancy over time. The study breaks ground in showing that individual-level exposure – necessarily accompanied by psychological distress and threat perceptions – is key to understanding civilians’ refusal to compromise in prolonged conflict.

  • The H1N1 Crisis: A Case Study of the Integration of Mental and Behavioral Health in Public Health Crises

  • Betty Pfefferbaum, David Schonfeld, Brian W. Flynn, Ann E. Norwood, Daniel Dodgen, Rachel E. Kaul, Darrin Donato, Brook Stone, Lisa M. Brown, Dori B. Reissman, Gerard A. Jacobs, Stevan E. Hobfoll, Russell T. Jones, Jack Herrmann, Robert J. Ursano, Josef I. Ruzek
  • Journal:
    Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness / Volume 6 / Issue 1 / March 2012
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    08 April 2013, pp. 67-71
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • 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)

  • 17 - Resilience in the face of terrorism: linking resource investment with engagement

  • from Section 4 - Specific challenges
  • Edited by Steven M. Southwick, Brett T. Litz, Boston University, Dennis Charney, Matthew J. Friedman
  • Book:
    Resilience and Mental Health
    Published online:
    07 September 2011
    Print publication:
    18 August 2011, pp 253-263

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Since the terrorist attacks in Washington and New York on September 11, 2001 (9/11), there have been a flurry of studies on the impact of terrorism and war. Not surprisingly, research has focused on the negative health and mental health impact of these events. In particular, research has focused on how direct and indirect exposure to terrorism and war relate to increased post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression (Galea et al., 2002; Bleich et al., 2003; Panamaki et al., 2005; Hobfoll et al., 2006a, 2006b; Agronick et al., 2007). The major goal of terrorism in particular, and in many senses the purpose of war, is to impact the enemy’s civilian population psychologically to motivate them to capitulate to demands, or to make them psychologically suffer for perceived wrongs they have done. Indeed, this second goal of terrorism, to inflict harm without a clear political goal, is increasingly the stance taken by terrorists. Whether it is Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qa’ida or the Tamil Tigers, it is not always clear what they are actually asking for, or if there is agreement among them as to what “victory” would even look like. Rather, they often strike out to cause the “enemy” to suffer in exchange for their suffering.

    The study of traumatic psychological injury has continued value. In particular, we know little about how people react to ongoing terrorism (Bleich et al., 2003; Hobfoll et al., 2006a), circumstances where populations must quickly evacuate (Palmieri et al., 2008), or to different kinds of attack (shootings, stabbings, bioterrorism, etc.). Nor do we know much about instances where attacks are of large scale, even though in places like Iraq terrorist attacks have often been of major, repeated scale. Studies of national samples in regions of ongoing terrorism and war are particularly important to study because both direct and indirect exposure takes a heavy toll on such populations (Stein et al., 2004; Somer et al., 2005; Shalev et al., 2006).

  • 20 - Mental Health and Terrorism

  • from Part II - The Social Context of Mental Health and Illness
  • Edited by Teresa L. Scheid, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, Tony N. Brown, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee
  • Book:
    A Handbook for the Study of Mental Health
    Published online:
    05 June 2012
    Print publication:
    16 November 2009, pp 384-406

  • Summary

    The current racial categories reflect the convergence of geographic origins, exposure to prejudice and discrimination, and socioeconomic disadvantage. This chapter provides an overview of the mental health status for each minority population and evaluates the available scientific evidence of racial variations in mental health. In considering directions for future research, the chapter emphasizes the need to identify the ways in which the mental health problems of each group emerge from the larger social context in which the group is embedded. Race is strongly associated with socioeconomic status (SES), with American Indians, Hispanics, Blacks, and certain subgroups of the Asian and Pacific Islander population having lower levels of multiple indicators of SES than the White population. Challenges deriving from the adaptation to mainstream American culture and socioeconomic disadvantage can lead minority group members to experience high levels of stressful experiences that could adversely affect health.

  • 14 - Guiding community intervention following terrorist attack

  • from Part III - Reducing the burden: community response and community recovery
  • Edited by Yuval Neria, Columbia University, New York, Raz Gross, Columbia University, New York, Randall D. Marshall, Columbia University, New York, Ezra S. Susser, Columbia University, New York
  • Foreword by Beverley Raphael
  • Book:
    9/11: Mental Health in the Wake of Terrorist Attacks
    Published online:
    27 October 2009
    Print publication:
    14 September 2006, pp 215-228

  • Summary

    Clearly many nations have faced terrorism's modern form for decades. Israel has faced terrorist attack against civilian targets since before its inception as a state. India is attacked daily by Muslim separatists from Cashmere, Spain has faced Euskadi ta Askatasuna (ETA) for decades, and Russia and China have faced terrorist attack from separatist movements that have brought violence and death to their major cities.

    What is different about September 11th is that terrorists attacked the most powerful nation on earth using its own technology of aircraft and structural physics in a way that in minutes ended the lives of thousands in New York and nearly 200 lives at the Pentagon. The attack was the first on American soil since the all but forgotten attack by Japan on the Aleutian Islands during World War II, and even that attack and Pearl Harbor were not on the continental USA. Moreover, and easily forgotten, because no one knew what might occur in the wake of the aircraft genocidal attacks, the secondary threat was the belief that “anything was possible” in the hours, days, and weeks following the attack. Television news talked of possible, or even probable, secondary attack that could take the form of more airplanes, suicide bombers, chemical or biological weapons, or even an atomic attack. The US security establishment was clearly caught unprepared. Fully 5 hours after the attack (1:44 p.m. EST), the first warship and aircraft carriers were ordered dispatched from the US Naval Station in Norfolk, Virginia (US Department of State, 2002).