Randomized, Controlled Trial of Three Levels of Critical Incident Stress Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stress debriefing following exposure to a critical incident is becoming more prevalent. Its aim is to prevent or minimize the development of excessive stress response symptoms that lead to loss of productivity or effectiveness in the workplace or at home. There is little evidence that any form of psychological debriefing is effective. This study evaluated the effectiveness of three intervention strategies, and attempted to correlate the symptoms with the severity of the incident and level of intervention. METHODS: A randomized, controlled trial of three levels of critical stress intervention was conducted in the British Columbia Ambulance Service (BCAS), in British Columbia, Canada, among paramedics and emergency medical technicians (EMTs), reporting critical incident stress. Outcomes were measured at one week (Stanford Acute Stress Reaction Questionnaire (SASRQ), the Life Impact Score (LIS), and Schedule of Recent Events (SRE)), and at three months and six months following the intervention (Impact of Events (IE), Coping Mechanisms, LIS, and SRE). RESULTS: Fifty calls were received during the 26-month study period (<1 per 10,000 BCAS response calls): 23 were by third parties, but the involved EMT did not call; nine were placed by crew unwilling to participate in the study; 18 subjects enrolled, but six completed no forms. No correlation was found between severity of the incident and scores on the SASRQ, IE, or LIS, or between any of these scores. There was no consistent pattern in the stress scores over time. CONCLUSION: Requests for critical incident stress intervention were uncommon. The need for intervention may not be as great as generally is assumed. Further randomized trials, ideally multicenter studies, are indicated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
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".