Stress Reduction in Law Enforcement Officers and Staff through a Canine-Assisted Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Law enforcement officers and staff are known to experience elevated workplace stress, largely due to their increased exposure to traumatic incidents. This results in individuals experiencing trauma themselves and resultant compromised physical and mental health. Law enforcement officers are also known to be reluctant help-seekers and to increase participation in programs to promote employee well-being, initiatives are increasingly integrated into the day-to-day work routine of employees. An intervention showing promise with health care providers and college students but not yet used with law enforcement officers and staff has been to provide individuals access to therapy dogs to reduce stress. Seven therapy dogs along with their handlers were brought to an urban police precinct for 90-minutes each week for 8 weeks. A total of 251 visits (56% staff, 43% officers, < 1% unidentified) to the dog station were made with the average duration of visits being 11 minutes. A visual analogue scale was used to assess participants pre-to-post differences in stress and a paired Wilcoxon signed-ranked test indicated a significant effect of the intervention with mean stress decreasing from pre-to-post visit. Findings are discussed within the context of canine-assisted intervention and law enforcement well-being.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".