MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029589214 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01031

High Rates of Mental Health Disorders in Civilian Employees Working in Police Organizations

2020· article· en· W3029589214 on OpenAlexafffund
Liana Lentz, Peter H. Silverstone, Yasmeen I. Krameddine

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsPsychologyMental healthApplied psychologyPsychiatryPublic relationsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Working in a police organization often involves being exposed to potentially traumatic events and stressful circumstances regardless of occupation or rank. Police mental health is a public health concern, but the mental health of civilian employees working in police organizations has been much less studied. The current study aims to compare the frequency of mental health conditions in both police officers and civilians. This was evaluated by measuring mean scores on several mental health screening tools including scales to determine symptom severity for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with the PTSD Checklist - PCL-5, depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ), general anxiety with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7), and alcohol use with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). The total potential population was 1,225 civilian employees and 3,714 police officers, of which 513 (10%) participated. Of these, 201 (16%) were civilians, and 312 (8%) were police officers (p<0.001). In the study population, 26% screened positive for any mental health disorder. Somewhat surprisingly, we found significantly more civilians (32.8%) than police officers (22.7%) met diagnostic criteria. We also found that civilian participants had higher mean scores in measures of PTSD, anxiety, and depression, although only for depression did this reach statistical significance. Civilians were 1.7 times more likely to screen positive for depression compared to police officers, a statistically significant difference. In contrast, police officers demonstrated statistically higher scores for alcohol use than civilians. One limitation of this study is that the data reflects responses from only a minority of the overall population and, therefore, may not accurately reflect the frequency of mental health issues in the total police organization including civilian employees. Nonetheless, the results strongly suggest that the mental health of all employees can be negatively impacted by working in a police environment, and this is important given the growing number of civilians employed within police organizations. These findings support initiatives aimed at destigmatizing mental health disorders, improving stress management, and increasing access to mental health care on an organization-wide basis, and not just limited to front-line police officers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207