Psychological First Aid Intervention after Exposure to a Traumatic Event at Work among Emergency Medical Services Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological First Aid (PFA) is a promising early intervention for managing mental health symptoms and providing psychosocial support after exposure to a traumatic event (TE) among high-risk organizations such as Emergency Medical Service (EMS). However, recipients' experience with PFA remains understudied. This study aimed to explore the perception of EMS workers (n = 13) who received PFA administered by a peer helper using a qualitative inductive approach. Findings from a thematic analysis indicated that the PFA intervention addresses EMS workers' immediate needs in congruence with Hobfoll's five essential principles to enhance coping and recovery after a TE. Specific components of the intervention, such as its time-sensitive nature and the closeness with peers, were especially appreciated by EMS workers. The PFA intervention appeared to have a beneficial impact on recipients, regarding the reduction of stigma, the increase of help-seeking behaviors, and the decrease of organizational difficulties. In conclusion, the PFA intervention offered by peer helpers is appreciated by recipients and is a beneficial first step toward supporting EMS workers in the aftermath of workplace trauma. These qualitative findings contribute to the current literature by informing further research about PFA intervention in other high-risk organizations and quantitative studies aiming to test PFA's efficacy in such settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".