Prevalent posttraumatic stress disorder among emergency department personnel: rapid systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research review synthesized the evidence on the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder among emergency department personnel in Canada and the USA. No previous such synthesis, specific to this crucial aspect of North American health care had previously been published. Broad keyword searches of interdisciplinary research databases, both peer-reviewed and grey, retrieved 10 surveys published between 1996 and 2019. Their outcomes were synthesized with sample-weighted, pooled analyses. The most significant review finding was that one of every five such emergency care personnel met posttraumatic stress disorder diagnostic criteria; 18.6% (95% confidence interval 16.9, 20.4). However, this synthesis of generally small, nonprobability surveys with high nonparticipation rates, could only suggest that the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder is perhaps nearly two-fold greater among emergency department nurses (25.8%) than physicians (15.6%). Additionally, it seems that gender (being a woman) may play an important role in the relatively greater risk of nurses. Better controlled, more powerful probability surveys that examine the profession by gender interaction, are needed to affirm (or refute) these synthetic findings. Qualitative inquiries that tap into the key informing experiences of diverse emergency department personnel are also needed to best plan and implement their preventive and therapeutic care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".