Self-Reported Coping Strategies for Managing Work-Related Stress among Public Safety Personnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public safety personnel (PSP) experience a disproportionately high number of on-the-job stressors compared to the general population. PSP develop self-initiated actions, or coping strategies, that either confront the situation (approach strategies) or avoid the situation (avoidance strategies) to reduce the impact of stressors on their well-being. Understanding how PSP cope with stress is critical to ensuring their safety and that of the public. In the current study, we examined the coping strategies of PSP (n = 828 in the total sample). Participants managed their experiences of occupational stress or distress using three primary approach coping strategies: education (learning about mental illness and their causes), self-reliance (processes of self-reflection), and treatment (pharmaceutical, psychotherapy) that were considered adaptive. Results demonstrate PSP used multiple coping strategies simultaneously to deal with occupational stress. PSP who reported doing better tended to attribute their success to treatment, specifically psychotherapy, either alone or in combination with other interventions, and almost always emphasizing important supports from co-workers, families, and friends. Changing workplace culture could help to de-pathologize the effects of stress reactions being perceived as individual “failings”.
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 | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".