A feasibility study of psychological first aid as a supportive intervention among police officers exposed to traumatic events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Police officers are often exposed to traumatic events, which can induce psychological distress and increase the risk of developing post-traumatic stress injuries. To date, little is known about support and prevention of traumatic events in police organizations. Psychological first aid (PFA) has been promoted as a promising solution to prevent psychological distress following exposure to a traumatic event. However, PFA has not yet been adapted to policing reality, let alone to the frequent exposure to traumatic events faced by this population. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of PFA as an early intervention for the prevention of post-traumatic stress injuries among police officers in Quebec, Canada. Specifically, the objectives were to evaluate: (1) the demand. (2) the practicality, and (3) the acceptability of PFA in a police organization. Methods: = 6). Interviews were transcribed, coded, and evaluated according to a thematic analysis. Results: Eleven themes emerged from participants' responses. Results suggested that PFA met individual and organizational needs. References were also made regarding the impacts of this intervention. Moreover, participants provided feedback for improving the implementation and sustainability of a PFA program. All three groups of participants shared similar thematic content. Discussion: Findings revealed that implementation of a PFA program in a law enforcement agency was feasible and could be accomplished without major issues. Importantly, PFA had beneficial consequences within the organization. Specifically, PFA destigmatized mental health issues and renewed a sense of hope among police personnel. These findings are in line with previous research.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".