Stress and psychological well‐being in UK and Malaysian fire fighters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship among sources of stress, coping strategy, job satisfaction and psychological well‐being and to examine the roles of coping behaviour as the moderator variable. Design/methodology/approach The study uses a questionnaire survey and area sampling design, with responses of 617 Malaysian fire fighters and 436 UK fire fighters. The questionnaire comprises: the Sources of Occupational Stress in Fire Fighters & Paramedics scale, the Coping Response of Rescue Workers and the Job Satisfaction Scale. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis is used to examine the moderating effect of coping behaviour on job satisfaction and psychological well‐being. Findings It is found that the sources of occupational stress have significant negative correlations with job satisfaction and psychological well‐being. The results of the regression analysis indicates that overall coping behaviour has a significant influence on overall job satisfaction for UK fire fighters but not for Malaysian fire fighters. However, overall coping behaviour has a significant effect as a moderating variable between sources of stress and psychological health for Malaysian fire fighters. Practical implications The results suggest that training that focuses on psychological aspects (stress management, coping strategies, etc.), and the use of counsellors should be highlighted. It is suggested that the Malaysian Fire Brigade should establish a Counselling Unit, to deal with psychological problems faced by the fire fighters. Originality/value This study shows how theories originating in developed countries (USA and Canada) can help explain the psychological health of the fire fighters in a developing country (Malaysia). The analysis of statistical results led to the development of a model to interpret the factors influencing psychological health in Malaysian and UK fire fighters. Beside that, the evidence from the study also highlighted that factors such as culture may influence the ways employees cope up with the situations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".