Prevalence of exposure to critical incidents in firefighters across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Firefighters partake in and are exposed to a range of potentially traumatic events throughout their careers and the impact of such critical events could last a life time. Therefore, capturing such lifetime exposures is necessary for supporting firefighter health. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of critical incidents in firefighters across Canada and determine whether the number of critical events varied based on age, gender, years of service; and to integrate our prevalence estimates using meta-analysis with previous studies to provide a pooled estimate. METHODS: We recruited 464 firefighters. Firefighters were asked to complete a self-report Critical Incident Inventory (CII) survey that included questions on exposure to critical events throughout their firefighting careers. Individual CII items were summarized as percentages, number of exposures, the total number and percentages of exposures to each of the six CII sub-scales. We also performed a multivariate enter regression analysis with the CII total score as dependant variable, and age, gender, years of service as independent variables, to estimate if the number of critical incidents among firefighters varied based on age, gender and years of service. RESULTS: Among the 390 full-time firefighters, 376 (96.4%) indicated exposure to some type of critical incident. More specifically, 351 (90%) reported a "respond to incident involving one or two deaths", and 314 (81%) reported a "respond to incident involving multiple serious injuries". Age, gender and years of service accounted for only 37.4% of the variance in the number of critical incidents among firefighters. In addition, our pooled estimate results of previous similar studies indicated an overall prevalence estimate of critical incident exposures was 93.40% (4 studies, 1725 of 1877 firefighters, 95% CI: 82.26 -99.30). CONCLUSIONS: Nearly all (96.4%) firefighters were exposed to some form of critical event over the span of their entire firefighting careers. Age, gender and years of service accounted for one-third of the variance in the number of critical incident exposures among firefighters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".