Effectiveness of Psychological First Aid Training for social work students, practitioners and human service professionals in Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological First Aid (PFA) is becoming a universally accepted intervention in providing psychosocial support to individuals and families affected by trauma or disaster. Our study aimed to measure the effectiveness of a didactic and simulation based Psychological First Aid (PFA) training program in Alberta, Canada. Social work students, practitioners, and human service professionals from Calgary, Edmonton, and Lethbridge were invited to attend the training. A total of 90 participants attended the training at three different sites. A pre and post survey questionnaire was administered to all the participants before and after the training. Findings showed that the training has significantly improved participants’ PFA knowledge and perceived competence in PFA skill. PFA training enhanced their confidence, disaster preparedness, and self-care strategies needed to provide psychosocial support to individuals and families in disaster situations. Our study provides preliminary evidence supporting the effectiveness of the PFA training program among social work students, practitioners and human service professionals for future disaster preparedness in Alberta, Canada.Keywords: Psychological first aid, social work, disaster preparedness, training, competency, effectiveness, Canada
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".