MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940748782 · doi:10.1177/0706743719842562

The Road to Mental Readiness for First Responders: A Meta-Analysis of Program Outcomes

2019· review· en· W2940748782 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrew C. H. Szeto, Keith S. Dobson, Stephanie Knaak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsMental Health Commission of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthStigma (botany)PsychologyMental illnessAffect (linguistics)Meta-analysisClinical psychologyFirst responderPerceptionProgram evaluationPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: First-responder mental health, especially in Canada, has been a topic of increasing interest given the high incidence of poor mental health, mental illness, and suicide among this cohort. Although research generally suggests that resiliency and stigma reduction programs can directly and indirectly affect mental health, little research has examined this type of training in first responders. The current paper examines the efficacy of the Road to Mental Readiness for First Responders program (R2MR), a resiliency and anti-stigma program. METHODS: The program was tested using a pre-post design with a 3-month follow-up in 5 first-responder groups across 16 sites. RESULTS: A meta-analytic approach was used to estimate the overall effects of the program on resiliency and stigma reduction. Our results indicate that R2MR was effective at increasing participants' perceptions of resiliency and decreasing stigmatizing attitudes at the pre-post review, which was mostly maintained at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Both quantitative and qualitative data suggest that the program helped to shift workplace culture and increase support for others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.021
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations100
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207