Exploring Paramedic Communication and Emotional Expression in the Workplace after Responding to Emergency Calls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Paramedics are at risk of developing mental distress and disorders when exposed to traumatic calls. Several studies demonstrate that when individuals are exposed to a traumatic event, there is a correlation between a lack of social support and emotional expression, and the development of disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Unfortunately, little is known about the social support that paramedics receive from their peers, particularly in the workplace after responding to traumatic calls. Methods The study aim was to learn about peer communication and emotional expression between paramedics in the workplace, after they respond to calls. This qualitative study was guided by constructivist, grounded theory. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight paramedics who worked for British Columbia Emergency Health Services in Canada. Results Two components of communication were described by participants: the content and logistics of peer communication. Content comprised of three types of peer communication: positive, negative and neutral, with the latter two potentially harmful to paramedics. Logistically, participants desired time to speak privately in the ambulance after calls, preferably with their regular partner or a peer with traits easing communication. These traits were identified as being comfortable with, trusting, sharing similarities and knowing one's partner. Conclusion Employers should facilitate positive peer communication among paramedics while considering the communication preferences described in this study. This could help to reduce rates of mental distress and disorders in paramedics.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".