Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T21:29:02.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Anthrax Exposure, Belief in Exposure, and Postanthrax Symptoms Among Survivors of a Bioterrorist Attack on Capitol Hill

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 November 2018

Stephanie Chiao*
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
Howard Kipen
Affiliation:
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute and School of Public Health, Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey
William K. Hallman
Affiliation:
Department of Human Ecology, School of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
David E. Pollio
Affiliation:
Department of Social Work, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Alabama Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
Carol S. North
Affiliation:
The Altshuler Center for Education & Research at Metrocare Services and the Department of Psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to Stephanie Chiao, 525 E. 68th Street, Box 140, New York, NY, 10065 (e-mail: skc9013@nyp.org).

Abstract

Background

Following chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear disasters, medically unexplained symptoms have been observed among unexposed persons.

Objectives

This study examined belief in exposure in relation to postdisaster symptoms in a volunteer sample of 137 congressional workers after the 2001 anthrax attacks on Capitol Hill.

Methods

Postdisaster symptoms, belief in exposure, and actual exposure status were obtained through structured diagnostic interviews and self-reported presence in offices officially designated as exposed through environmental sampling. Multivariate models were tested for associations of number of postdisaster symptoms with exposure and belief in exposure, controlling for sex and use of antibiotics.

Results

The sample was divided into 3 main subgroups: exposed, 41%; unexposed but believed they were exposed, 17%; and unexposed and did not believe that they were exposed, 42%. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of the volunteers reported experiencing symptoms after the anthrax attacks. Belief in anthrax exposure was significantly associated with the number of ear/nose/throat, musculoskeletal, and all physical symptoms. No significant associations were found between anthrax exposure and the number of postdisaster symptoms.

Conclusions

Given the high incidence of these symptoms, these data suggest that even in the absence of physical injury or illness, there may be surges in health care utilization. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2019;13:555-560)

Type
Original Research
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Glik, DC. Risk communication for public health emergencies. Annu Rev Public Health. 2007;28:33-54. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.28.021406.144123.Google Scholar
2. Beaton, R, Stergachis, A, Oberle, M, et al. The Sarin gas attacks on the Tokyo subway-10 years later/Lessons learned. Traumatology. 2005;11(2):103-119.Google Scholar
3. Stone, FP. The “worried well” response to CBRN events: analysis and solutions. The Counterproliferation Papers, Future Warfare series No. 40, United States Air Force Counterproliferation Center. Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a475818.pdf. Published June 2007. Accessed August 13, 2017.Google Scholar
4. Steinhausler, F. Chernobyl and Goiania lessons for responding to radiological terrorism. Health Phys. 2005;89(5):566-574.Google Scholar
5. Engel, CC, Locke, S, Reissman, DB, et al. Terrorism, trauma, and mass casualty triage: how might we solve the latest mind-body problem? Biosecur Bioterror. 2007;5(2):155-163. doi: 10.1089/bsp.2007.0004.Google Scholar
6. Meredith, LS, Eisenman, DP, Tanielian, T, et al. Prioritizing “psychological” consequences for disaster preparedness and response: a framework for addressing the emotional, behavioral, and cognitive effects of patient surge in large-scale disasters. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2011;5(1):73-80. doi: 10.1001/dmp.2010.47.Google Scholar
7. International Atomic Energy Agency. The Radiological Accident in Goiânia. https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/pub815_web.pdf. Published 1988. Accessed May 24, 2017.Google Scholar
8. Zhang, G, North, CS. Somatization disorder and somatoform symptoms in systematically studied survivors of 10 disasters. Ann Clin Psychiatry. 2017;29(3):182-190.Google Scholar
9. Rost, KM, Luo, Z, Goddeeris, J, et al. Minor acute illness: a preliminary research report on the “worried well. J Fam Pract. 2002;51(1):24-29.Google Scholar
10. Cochran, SD, Mays, VM. Women and AIDS-related concerns: roles for psychologists in helping the worried well. Am Psychol. 1989;44(3):529-535.Google Scholar
11. Bor, R, Perry, L, Miller, R, et al. Strategies for counselling the ‘worried well’ in relation to AIDS: discussion paper. J R Soc Med. 1989;82(4):218-220.Google Scholar
12. Verity, R, Kirk, A, O’Connell, ME, et al. The worried well? Characteristics of cognitively normal patients presenting to a rural and remote memory clinic. Can J Neurol Sci. 2018;45(2):158-167.Google Scholar
13. Haller, H, Cramer, H, Lauche, R, et al. Somatoform disorders and medically unexplained symptoms in primary care. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2015;112(16):279-287. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.027 9.Google Scholar
14. Stein, BD, Tanielian, TL, Eisenman, DP, et al. Emotional and behavioral consequences of bioterrorism: planning a public health response. Milbank Q. 2004;82(3):413-455. doi: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00317.x.Google Scholar
15. North, CS, Pollio, DE, Pfefferbaum, B, et al. Capitol hill staff workers’ experiences of bioterrorism: qualitative findings from focus groups. J Trauma Stress. 2005;18(1):79-88. doi: 10.1002/jts.20006.Google Scholar
16. North, CS, Pfefferbaum, B, Vythilingam, M, et al. Exposure to bioterrorism and mental health response among staff on Capitol Hill. Biosecur Bioterror. 2009;7(4):379-388. doi:10.1089/bsp.2009.0031.Google Scholar
17. Robins, L, Cottler, L, Bucholz, K, et al. Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM-IV (DISIV). Saint Louis, MO: Washington University School of Medicine; 1995.Google Scholar
18. Robins, L, Smith, E. The Diagnostic Interview Schedule/Disaster Supplement. Saint Louis, MO: Washington University School of Medicine; 1983.Google Scholar
19. Hallman, WK, Kipen, HM, Diefenbach, M, et al. Symptom patterns among Gulf War registry veterans [published online March 28, 2003]. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):624-630.Google Scholar
20. North, CS. The Classification of hysteria and related disorders: historical and phenomenological considerations. Behav Sci (Basel). 2015;5(4):496-517. doi: 10.3390/bs5040496.Google Scholar
21. Covello, VT, Peters, RG, Wojtecki, JG, et al. Risk communication, the West Nile virus epidemic, and bioterrorism: responding to the communication challenges posed by the intentional or unintentional release of a pathogen in an urban setting. J Urban Health. 2001;78(2):382-391.Google Scholar
22. Brewer, NT, Hallman, WK, Kipen, HM. The symmetry rule: a seven‐year study of symptoms and explanatory labels among Gulf War veterans. Risk Anal. 2008;28(6):1737-1748.Google Scholar
23. US General Accounting Office. Bioterrorism. Public Health Response to Anthrax Incidents of 2001. https://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04152.pdf. Published October 2003. Accessed May 30, 2017.Google Scholar