A Review and Retrospective Analysis of Mental Health Services Provided after the September 11 Attacks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Various mental health services were provided in New York City in the response to the September 11 attacks. This article describes these services and the subsequent research in disaster psychiatry to identify recommended practices for future disasters. METHOD: A PubMed search identified 198 articles since the 9/11 attacks that included "New York City," and either "9/11" or "disaster," and either "psychiatry" or "mental health." The abstracts of all of these articles were reviewed to identify articles that described clinical services and those articles were then reviewed in detail. Additional reports on 9/11-related services were identified through book chapters. RESULTS: Acute services included debriefings and other single-time outreach interventions. Postacute phase interventions included community outreach with the goal of addressing normative psychological sequelae, multisession interventions based on evidence-based treatments, and hospital-based psychiatric services provided in the context of general health screenings for response workers. CONCLUSIONS: Many programs integrated medical and nonmedical services. The professional literature in the decade since this disaster has shifted recommended practices away from psychological debriefings in the acute phase to the implementation of psychological first aid (PFA). Many of the acute 9/11-related services actually closely resembled PFA. In the postacute phase, resources need to be made available for more resource-intensive psychiatric treatment for the fraction of survivors who develop psychiatric illness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".